HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Atlantic Provinces


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #14661  
Old Posted May 17, 2024, 2:27 PM
adamuptownsj adamuptownsj is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Posts: 1,280
Good little infill on Boars Head. I wonder who owns the land to its east? https://paol-efel.snb.ca/paol.html?v...n&pan=01677452 and https://paol-efel.snb.ca/paol.html?v...n&pan=04743058
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14662  
Old Posted May 17, 2024, 6:15 PM
TitleRequired TitleRequired is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2024
Posts: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by EnvisionSaintJohn View Post
More like partner in crime But, he's really claimed to have dozens on his side to support this use of the Belyea as transitional housing, and I really don't think many of them live on the West Side or anywhere near the arena.

Stuffing 50+ people including the "24/7 support staff" into a hockey rink is offensive on so many levels. It's offensive that Canada's oldest city is shutting down hockey rinks, and offensive that Canadians will be shoved into living in an abandoned rink because we can't build more dignified transitional housing elsewhere, where they won't be subjects of resentment and disdain from the surrounding residents.

We have a need for more senior care homes too, and I don't think people in the surrounding neighbourhood would be quite as upset about the Belyea Arena being turned into an assisted living community for seniors, but even that would still be a pretty poor use of the property, considering it's size and oceanview location. It could be used for far more, and the rink could be re-opened and operated by private interests, of which there remains plenty. Ice time remains a scarce commodity in the Greater Saint John Region, and people out as far as Quispamsis, Nauwigewauk, or even further are willing to travel into Saint John to rent ice.

If I correctly understand what you're saying, it sounds like since the 2023 changes, getting the Belyea approved for use as "supportive housing" is easier than it would be to get approved as new residential housing within the surrounding neighbourhood? While this is definitely troubling, let's not forget that politics is the art of the possible. It may be hard to deny use under the new bylaws, but zoning of the property could still be changed. No matter what happens with the site, it's ultimately going to come down to a vote, right? even for a technical review? right...?

There's far more votes on council than Killen and Harris, and there's quite a lot of time until July to make some noise about this planned usage that frankly most people don't even know about. There's still time to try to influence the vote against this proposed usage to allow transitional housing to be built on top of prime, oceanfront property a stones throw away from half a million dollar. I think council could be convinced to deny permission to Brent's plan, and hold out for a project that would increase the economic value of the surrounding neighbourhood. I also think they could be convinced to allow the rink to reopen as a private operation, as there's absolutely a demand for ice time. The property currently valued at $1,757,100 is generating 0 tax revenue for the city. As a private rink it would generate property tax revenue for the city, as supportive housing it might still not generate any property tax revenue for the city. Reopening the rink and building some residential towers in the field and into park/playground would be a great opportunity for the city to generate a lot more property tax revenue.


There's room to increase the already ample parking, and there's a nearby sign only bustop on chapel that could be moved to the Belyea.


There's all kinds of room in the field, park, and playground behind the arena to build a few residential towers with ample green space in between, and the kicker is that there is even an exit onto City Line, to help deal with "traffic concerns".


The city should prioritize growing the tax base, and there's definitely an opportunity to do that with the Belyea Arena property. We need more infill housing than we need that soccer field, the park not popular, and the playground could be improved with something much better.

The city should think about what's best for the long term interests of the neighbourhood and the city at large, and hold out to attract a developer who could transform the site into something to actually be excited about as something positive, perhaps something like this:


Sorry, for my longwinded reply... I appreciate your response and clarification regarding the bylaw changes. Thank you.
My 'acid test' on these initiatives is would it be possible to do in Rothesay. The short answer to this is no -- their zoning bylaw has as its closest 'support home' a concept of a 'group home' limited to 4 people.

I'm also reminded of the phoenix learning center in Fredericton that raised the ire of the neighbors.

https://pub-fredericton.escribemeeti...ocumentId=2027

Luckily they were able to get the permission to operate rescinded.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14663  
Old Posted May 22, 2024, 5:22 PM
sailor734 sailor734 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2023
Posts: 799
Construction fencing is gone at Seabird Suites in Millidgeville. They have spread topsoil and planted a line of trees along both Millidge and Daniel Ave. I would think (hope) sod is probably coming soon.

Huge improvement.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14664  
Old Posted May 22, 2024, 8:32 PM
cdnguys cdnguys is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,601
StatCan released population numbers for July 1, 2023
We grew an impressive (by SJ standards) 2.5% to 139,000. Assuming same rate of growth we should be at 142,500 by end of next month. Interestingly SJ was one of only 15 cities across Canada (ranked #7) for gains from interprovincial migration.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14665  
Old Posted May 22, 2024, 9:14 PM
EnvisionSaintJohn's Avatar
EnvisionSaintJohn EnvisionSaintJohn is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2023
Posts: 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by TitleRequired View Post
My 'acid test' on these initiatives is would it be possible to do in Rothesay. The short answer to this is no -- their zoning bylaw has as its closest 'support home' a concept of a 'group home' limited to 4 people.

I'm also reminded of the phoenix learning center in Fredericton that raised the ire of the neighbors.

https://pub-fredericton.escribemeeti...ocumentId=2027

Luckily they were able to get the permission to operate rescinded.
Brent’s desired use for the Belyea to be turned into transitional housing would still require a vote though right? Or were the bylaw changes so drastic that it wouldn’t even need to pass a vote? Any thoughts on how residents of the neighbourhood could effectively oppose Brent’s plan, or better yet, how to convince the city to reopen the rink?

The city has already saved close to $800,000 keeping it closed these past four years, if we can believe their total of $180,000 in yearly savings by keeping it closed. Their own report said that 3.5 rinks was the number of rinks the city should support, so they mothballed the Belyea and went from 5 to 4 rinks.

SJ’s population has grown considerably since that report, so going back to 5 rinks would make sense. What doesn’t make sense is Brent Harris’s claims that the city plans to put the cost savings from keeping the Belyea shut, towards building a new multiplex rink. Which would give us 6, and cost tens of millions.

I think it’s far more logical to take those cost savings from keeping the Belyea shut, and put it towards refurbishing and reopening the rink, than building a brand new multiplex arena.

The skeptic in me thinks that the city has always had far more nefarious reasons behind their decision to shut down the Belyea than cost savings. Imo, the real reason was much more about finding a way to offload Uptown’s homeless problem onto the West Side, than saving money. Brent’s terrible plan for the arena would just kick that process into overdrive, at the expense expense of a nice neighbourhood that doesn’t want it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14666  
Old Posted May 23, 2024, 10:45 AM
TitleRequired TitleRequired is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2024
Posts: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by EnvisionSaintJohn View Post
Brent’s desired use for the Belyea to be turned into transitional housing would still require a vote though right? Or were the bylaw changes so drastic that it wouldn’t even need to pass a vote? Any thoughts on how residents of the neighbourhood could effectively oppose Brent’s plan, or better yet, how to convince the city to reopen the rink?

The city has already saved close to $800,000 keeping it closed these past four years, if we can believe their total of $180,000 in yearly savings by keeping it closed. Their own report said that 3.5 rinks was the number of rinks the city should support, so they mothballed the Belyea and went from 5 to 4 rinks.

SJ’s population has grown considerably since that report, so going back to 5 rinks would make sense. What doesn’t make sense is Brent Harris’s claims that the city plans to put the cost savings from keeping the Belyea shut, towards building a new multiplex rink. Which would give us 6, and cost tens of millions.

I think it’s far more logical to take those cost savings from keeping the Belyea shut, and put it towards refurbishing and reopening the rink, than building a brand new multiplex arena.

The skeptic in me thinks that the city has always had far more nefarious reasons behind their decision to shut down the Belyea than cost savings. Imo, the real reason was much more about finding a way to offload Uptown’s homeless problem onto the West Side, than saving money. Brent’s terrible plan for the arena would just kick that process into overdrive, at the expense expense of a nice neighbourhood that doesn’t want it.
I can't answer if it would have to go to a vote; and even if it did most of the councilors are all about "housing first" -- and thankful its not in their wards.

"housing first" is a failed strategy that rewards drug use and untreated mental illness.

From last winter are there any negative impacts documented by having the shelter open? That's how you start -- start a documentation trail on any negative impacts of the shelter to drive back accountability to the people that run it. That's what worked in Fredericton.

In view of the rink, I would consider the marginal cost per hour of icetime; and utilization rate before deciding to close any. I suspect, but haven't verified, that the model used in the report relates to some metric of rinks/10000 population or something -- which may not take into account local popularity, etc... if the rink is utilized > 80% and its costs are inline with other rinks on a marginal costs basis....

pretending with wild assed #; $180,000/2000h per year = 90$. They charge out at a peak of 300$/hr.

Not that I skate or play hockey...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14667  
Old Posted May 23, 2024, 1:31 PM
NB_ExistsToo NB_ExistsToo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Fredericton
Posts: 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by TitleRequired View Post
I can't answer if it would have to go to a vote; and even if it did most of the councilors are all about "housing first" -- and thankful its not in their wards.

"housing first" is a failed strategy that rewards drug use and untreated mental illness.

From last winter are there any negative impacts documented by having the shelter open? That's how you start -- start a documentation trail on any negative impacts of the shelter to drive back accountability to the people that run it. That's what worked in Fredericton.
You're joking right? I'm not an expert in the manner, but "housing first" strategy has been an effective methods of addressing homelessness, but you need a proper support network with cooperation from all levels of government. It probably won't work if one level of government, for example, plans on forcing people into rehab centres. It's done wonders in Finland, which would be very comparable to Canada for environment and availability of social networks.

See the links below, the global one is showing how beneficial it could be for Quebec. The rabble one, the author is against it (talks about an old social program we should implement), but provides both pros and cons regarding the subject.

https://globalnews.ca/news/10198145/...essness-model/
https://rabble.ca/columnists/is-finl...re-for-canada/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14668  
Old Posted May 23, 2024, 2:10 PM
darkharbour darkharbour is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2021
Posts: 370
Quote:
Originally Posted by EnvisionSaintJohn View Post
Brent’s desired use for the Belyea to be turned into transitional housing would still require a vote though right? Or were the bylaw changes so drastic that it wouldn’t even need to pass a vote? Any thoughts on how residents of the neighbourhood could effectively oppose Brent’s plan, or better yet, how to convince the city to reopen the rink?

The city has already saved close to $800,000 keeping it closed these past four years, if we can believe their total of $180,000 in yearly savings by keeping it closed. Their own report said that 3.5 rinks was the number of rinks the city should support, so they mothballed the Belyea and went from 5 to 4 rinks.

SJ’s population has grown considerably since that report, so going back to 5 rinks would make sense. What doesn’t make sense is Brent Harris’s claims that the city plans to put the cost savings from keeping the Belyea shut, towards building a new multiplex rink. Which would give us 6, and cost tens of millions.

I think it’s far more logical to take those cost savings from keeping the Belyea shut, and put it towards refurbishing and reopening the rink, than building a brand new multiplex arena.

The skeptic in me thinks that the city has always had far more nefarious reasons behind their decision to shut down the Belyea than cost savings. Imo, the real reason was much more about finding a way to offload Uptown’s homeless problem onto the West Side, than saving money. Brent’s terrible plan for the arena would just kick that process into overdrive, at the expense expense of a nice neighbourhood that doesn’t want it.
What does this even mean? There isn't any conspiracy at play here, it's an opportunistic choice by Harris to go after this arena, same as he has been doing for years with buildings in the old North End for example. No one wants to move the unhoused population from the areas of the city with the continuum of services necessary for their care, if anything the most common effort is to increase the funding share contributed by outlying areas to support those same core services.

The Belyea area was shut down because it is incredibly old and needed significant refurbishment, and the city was being financially prudent by trying to curtail its ongoing operating costs by not over-investing in the most highly subsidized and costly recreational facilities [ice rinks]. All of the arenas in the city are much older than the national average, so building a new multiplex isn't about savings from shutting down Belyea alone, it stems from the fact that virtually all of the neighbourhood rinks are near end-of-life and need replacing in the next ~5 years.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14669  
Old Posted May 23, 2024, 3:34 PM
TitleRequired TitleRequired is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2024
Posts: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by NB_ExistsToo View Post
You're joking right? I'm not an expert in the manner, but "housing first" strategy has been an effective methods of addressing homelessness, but you need a proper support network with cooperation from all levels of government. It probably won't work if one level of government, for example, plans on forcing people into rehab centres. It's done wonders in Finland, which would be very comparable to Canada for environment and availability of social networks.

See the links below, the global one is showing how beneficial it could be for Quebec. The rabble one, the author is against it (talks about an old social program we should implement), but provides both pros and cons regarding the subject.

https://globalnews.ca/news/10198145/...essness-model/
https://rabble.ca/columnists/is-finl...re-for-canada/
Is homelessness the problem, or the symptom?

"Treatment First" that rewards sober living and/or compliance with mental health treatment plans to enable employment stability should be the goal.

Something like the birmingham model, for example. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2881444/

In the Birmingham model, clients are provided a furnished apartment at a location separate from their treatment and employment activities. After the first week, continued access to the apartment is contingent on drug-negative urine tests. A drug-positive urine test results in the client's being taken to a local homeless shelter with an assured bed and daily transportation to daytime treatment activities. A week of documented abstinence enables the client to return to the program-provided apartment. ... A more recent analysis of the fourth Birmingham trial found that persons with longer periods of abstinence had stable housing long after treatment ended. In the most recent trial, of those persons abstinent for twenty-eight or more weeks (one-quarter of the sample), 70 percent[ were still stably housed twelve months after the treatment ended

What's the consequence of not being sober in "housing first"?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14670  
Old Posted May 23, 2024, 4:31 PM
EnvisionSaintJohn's Avatar
EnvisionSaintJohn EnvisionSaintJohn is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2023
Posts: 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkharbour View Post
What does this even mean? There isn't any conspiracy at play here, it's an opportunistic choice by Harris to go after this arena, same as he has been doing for years with buildings in the old North End for example. No one wants to move the unhoused population from the areas of the city with the continuum of services necessary for their care, if anything the most common effort is to increase the funding share contributed by outlying areas to support those same core services.

The Belyea area was shut down because it is incredibly old and needed significant refurbishment, and the city was being financially prudent by trying to curtail its ongoing operating costs by not over-investing in the most highly subsidized and costly recreational facilities [ice rinks]. All of the arenas in the city are much older than the national average, so building a new multiplex isn't about savings from shutting down Belyea alone, it stems from the fact that virtually all of the neighbourhood rinks are near end-of-life and need replacing in the next ~5 years.
First off, I'm not saying it's a conspiracy, it's painfully obvious what was at play here. Which goes back to the decision to turn it into a season warming shelter for the homeless... Uptown elites foisting their homeless problems on an asset they decided to shutdown on the West Side.

Why not build the multiplex rink at the Belyea? That will be out of the question if they just railroad through Brents proposal and foist 40+ transitonal housing units in the middle of a the Bayshore neighbourhood. Why rob a neighbourhood of it's rink and replace it with something 1000 times worse than a hockey rink. It's no wonder Saint John hasn't had any NHLers in a while, and evident with how little people care about stuff like ice rinks in Canada's oldest city. In other Canadian cities there would be protests about shutting down a rink, let alone shutting down a rink in the middle of a residential neighbourhood to put up something one step above a homeless shelter. Saint John has a drastic need for transitional housing. Why not put up some container homes at the port.

If it's beyond life as a rink, tear the thing down. Put up a nice 20 storey or higher with some of the things they were trying to stuff into the Belyea area, but give the neighbourhood what it actually wants and needs, which is more housing. There could be a great opportunity to include special care home facilities for the elderly, affordable housing, and maybe some luxury condos/ apartments on the top floors. We're in the middle of a housing crisis, a failing healthcare system, and a critical lack of beds for the elderly who can no longer live on their own, and this is a problem which will only get worse and worse as more and more of the boomers get older.

We need beds for special care homes for our grandparents and parents more than we need transitional housing on the West Side. We need more affordable housing on the West Side, and we also need recreation facilities. The lower West Side has now lost an outdoor rink at Marketplace, had the funding taken away to build a new rink at marketplace, and had the Belyea Arena shut down... and Beaconsfield hasn't been used as a rink in decades, even though it would be far less of a safety and reliability issue compared to Lily Lake which rarely meets the city's absurdly high minimum for ice thickness, since they insist on using heavy machinery to clear off the ice. Neighbourhood volunteers could have that shovelled off in a matter of a few hours on skates, but no, let's get the city works crew to do it instead, and do it like twice a year now since the ice is almost never thick enough for their machinery.

Outdoor rinks on land don't have the inherent risk of falling into water. Saint John's "ice strategy" is straight up BUNK. They didn't even have the balls to implement user fees on non city residents, which could have funded a refurbishment or replacement for the Belyea, and tried to make it sound like 4 rinks is more than enough since 3.5 rinks is all we really need. 4 might be enough to service 69,000 people, but we're closer to 75,000 now, and the metro area is on the way to 150,000 and beyond. $180k a year in savings is not worth an asset sitting unsold and generating zero tax revenue. The city had a chance to sell it to a private seller, which would have put money in the coffers and start generating tax revenue again. As Mayor Darling pointed out, it wasn't a good look for the city saying they can't compete or coexist with a private rink operator.


The Belyea arena building takes up a huge footprint for only 2 levels. It's designed as a rink, not for housing. It's not dignified to the people that Brent and his team want to stuff in there, it's inconsiderate to home owners and renter in the surrounding neighbourhood, and it's just squandering the potential for what could be a really exciting development opportunity to build something the neighbourhood actually wants and needs.

People in the neighbourhood could get behind a nice building with some special care facilities, affordable housing, and some more luxurious options too. What other locations in Saint John honestly offer a better view of the Bay of Fundy than what would be seen from 25 storeys above looking out across Bayshore Beach and Partridge Island. Not going to see any of those views from a hockey rink with two storeys. It's oceanfront real-estate. How is 40 or so transitional housing units stuffed inside what you've described as an "incredibly old hockey rink" the right kind of usage for a huge oceanview property with ample parking. It would be far better utilized for hundreds of apartments and condos.

The last thing West Side needs or wants is transitional housing replacing a once popular arena. Saint John absolutely needs transitional housing, but the Belyea Arena is NOT the logical place to locate such housing. Suburban families don't want those type of living arrangement nearby their homes, and it's completely unnecessary to build such an undesirable neighbour in the middle of a quaint seaside residential suburb, when we have all kinds of vacant lands and buildings within or adjacent to commercial and industrial areas, away from suburban neighbourhoods.

Brent's team, is a bunch of people from KV, Fredericton, and even Toronto. Pardon me if I don't thin they have the neighbourhood's best interest at heart when they don't even live here. They just want to say they've done something to help the unhoused, but not in their backyard! A huge transitional housing project shouldn't have to be in anyone's backyard.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14671  
Old Posted May 23, 2024, 4:37 PM
NB_ExistsToo NB_ExistsToo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Fredericton
Posts: 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by TitleRequired View Post
Is homelessness the problem, or the symptom?

"Treatment First" that rewards sober living and/or compliance with mental health treatment plans to enable employment stability should be the goal.

Something like the birmingham model, for example. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2881444/

In the Birmingham model, clients are provided a furnished apartment at a location separate from their treatment and employment activities. After the first week, continued access to the apartment is contingent on drug-negative urine tests. A drug-positive urine test results in the client's being taken to a local homeless shelter with an assured bed and daily transportation to daytime treatment activities. A week of documented abstinence enables the client to return to the program-provided apartment. ... A more recent analysis of the fourth Birmingham trial found that persons with longer periods of abstinence had stable housing long after treatment ended. In the most recent trial, of those persons abstinent for twenty-eight or more weeks (one-quarter of the sample), 70 percent[ were still stably housed twelve months after the treatment ended

What's the consequence of not being sober in "housing first"?
It's not 70% success rate, it's 70% of 25%... so a 17% success rate from all the subjects in this analysis, which I would consider not very successful. Whereas the "Housing First" model implemented by Finland has an 80% decrease in homelessness (18,000 to 3,686). Given, the Finnish model is analyzed from 1987 to 2022, so it's not apples to apples. Still significantly better than the Birmingham model you're referencing.

The Birmingham model is the "carrot and stick" approach, which isn't motivating individuals to get better, you're just motivating them to avoid punishment, which has endless studies showing that this approach works fine for short-term, but when the threat (the stick) is no longer there, the model returns poor results.

You're not trying to punish or force homeless to get better because it will never work (on a large scale). You need to provide the resources, outlets, and assistance without the continuous threat punishment at the slightest mishap.

So really, it depends on your goals. If you're just trying to clean up the city and make cities visually more appealing for tourists and local residence, the carrot a stick approach is suitable (especially since it would address problems before another election cycle). But if you're actually looking for solutions and ways to assist with the homeless, with the byproduct leading to a cleaner and visually appealing city, you need a better approach to address homelessness.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14672  
Old Posted May 23, 2024, 4:57 PM
EnvisionSaintJohn's Avatar
EnvisionSaintJohn EnvisionSaintJohn is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2023
Posts: 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by TitleRequired View Post
I can't answer if it would have to go to a vote; and even if it did most of the councilors are all about "housing first" -- and thankful its not in their wards.

"housing first" is a failed strategy that rewards drug use and untreated mental illness.

From last winter are there any negative impacts documented by having the shelter open? That's how you start -- start a documentation trail on any negative impacts of the shelter to drive back accountability to the people that run it. That's what worked in Fredericton.

In view of the rink, I would consider the marginal cost per hour of icetime; and utilization rate before deciding to close any. I suspect, but haven't verified, that the model used in the report relates to some metric of rinks/10000 population or something -- which may not take into account local popularity, etc... if the rink is utilized > 80% and its costs are inline with other rinks on a marginal costs basis....

pretending with wild assed #; $180,000/2000h per year = 90$. They charge out at a peak of 300$/hr.

Not that I skate or play hockey...
There's lots of documentation of needles in the park, trash piles of wrecked bikes and all kinds of crazy stuff, at what was once a popular rink, but turned into a problematic site in its use as homeless shelter. The decision to shut it down the rink doesn't really seem to be about cost savings, but more about offloading Uptown's homeless problem... first there was the winter homeless shelter, now Brent would like to stick transitional housing in there.

The fire department already shut down the homeless shelter usage because it was deemed a fire risk to have that many people living in there like that. I'd say the bigger risk is bringing crime and drugs to the neighbourhood, sinking property values of surrounding houses. That rink was literally the view out some people's front window. It's not exactly a happy third place for the community anymore, but turning it into a glorified homeless shelter and with safe injection sites? Yikes.

The part that really ticks me off, is that the city had an offer from a hockey coach with financial backing to buy and refurbish the rink and turn it into something better than what was there before. Instead, the city refused to compete with a private operator, and insists they will only sell it to someone who refuses to operate it as a rink. Former Mayor Don Darling pretty well said it was embarrassing for the city to take that sort of stance.

You'd think the fine folks over at Envision Saint John, the city, and the province could get in contact with some property developers, key players in housing, healthcare, and other relevant actors that could be involved in private public partnerships to build something there that fills a niche that the taxpayers of NB actually want to see built within our residential neighbourhoods.

There's far more powerful and influential people that could help get something sensible built there than Brent Harris. I hope the neighbourhood can put a stop to it before Brent and others on council attempt to push it through council. We should hold out for a much better plan than Brent's. If Brent's plan was strictly temporary with eventual demolish plans, it might not be so ridiculous. But he clearly sees this as a mainstay for years to come, which is quite concerning.

It's a great location that would have its potential squandered by Brent's really terrible vision for the neighbourhood with this type of undesirable project, instead of hundreds of housing units, refurbishing the rink, or building a new rink.

Last edited by EnvisionSaintJohn; May 24, 2024 at 1:08 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14673  
Old Posted May 23, 2024, 5:19 PM
TitleRequired TitleRequired is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2024
Posts: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by NB_ExistsToo View Post
It's not 70% success rate, it's 70% of 25%... so a 17% success rate from all the subjects in this analysis, which I would consider not very successful. Whereas the "Housing First" model implemented by Finland has an 80% decrease in homelessness (18,000 to 3,686). Given, the Finnish model is analyzed from 1987 to 2022, so it's not apples to apples. Still significantly better than the Birmingham model you're referencing.

The Birmingham model is the "carrot and stick" approach, which isn't motivating individuals to get better, you're just motivating them to avoid punishment, which has endless studies showing that this approach works fine for short-term, but when the threat (the stick) is no longer there, the model returns poor results.

You're not trying to punish or force homeless to get better because it will never work (on a large scale). You need to provide the resources, outlets, and assistance without the continuous threat punishment at the slightest mishap.

So really, it depends on your goals. If you're just trying to clean up the city and make cities visually more appealing for tourists and local residence, the carrot a stick approach is suitable (especially since it would address problems before another election cycle). But if you're actually looking for solutions and ways to assist with the homeless, with the byproduct leading to a cleaner and visually appealing city, you need a better approach to address homelessness.
I just want to see a solution to the drug problem, plaguing uptown and environs.

I don't support housing first as a solution to this problem. You seem to, and that's also ok. Eventually, if enough ideas get thrown at the problem something will eventually work.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14674  
Old Posted May 23, 2024, 5:27 PM
TitleRequired TitleRequired is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2024
Posts: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by EnvisionSaintJohn View Post
If Brent's plan was strictly temporary with eventual demolish plans, it might be so ridiculous. But he clearly sees this as a mainstay for years to come, which is quite concerning.

It's a great location that would have its potential squandered by Brent's really terrible vision for the neighbourhood with this type of undesirable project, instead of hundreds of housing units, refurbishing the rink, or building a new rink.
Agreed.

Its not like you can't get funding from government/public/private institutions to refurbish a rink. Especially in near election years.

While I seldom agree with Ward 2 councillors and at local large councillor (Gary Sullivan...), I suspect they would balk at this initiative should the millidgeville firestation or rink be suggested for similar use.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14675  
Old Posted May 23, 2024, 5:39 PM
DyAm00394 DyAm00394 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Saint John, N.B
Posts: 1,281
180-unit development proposed in east Saint John.

Quote:
"Several apartment buildings and townhouses could be coming to an east Saint John neighbourhoood.

The city’s planning advisory committee has given its stamp of approval to a 180-unit development in the area of Heather Way and Grandview Avenue.

It would include 12 buildings with five townhouse units in each (60 units total) and five apartment buildings with 24 units in each (120 units total).

Bill Dunnett appeared before members of the planning advisory committee on Wednesday as part of his rezoning and subdivision application.

Dunnett, the president of Dunnett’s Landscaping, said he hopes to begin construction later this year, if the project is approved.

“The townhouses would start as early as this fall, but the apartment buildings, that is down the road,” Dunnett told the committee.

He is also working on an 11-building development on the other side of Heather Way. Four of those buildings are completed, with seven more still to be done.


Dunnett said crews are constructing one building per year, meaning it will likely be another six or seven years before apartment buildings start going up on the new site.

During Wednesday’s meeting, planning advisory committee members heard from a number of nearby residents.

The biggest concern raised related to stormwater runoff and how development on the site could impact neighbouring properties.

City bylaws require developers to limit post-development runoff to existing pre-development levels.

The rezoning and subdivision application will now head to Saint John council for a public hearing and approval".
https://www.country94.ca/2024/05/23/...st-saint-john/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14676  
Old Posted May 24, 2024, 3:42 PM
sailor734 sailor734 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2023
Posts: 799
Quote:
Originally Posted by sailor734 View Post
Construction fencing is gone at Seabird Suites in Millidgeville. They have spread topsoil and planted a line of trees along both Millidge and Daniel Ave. I would think (hope) sod is probably coming soon.

Huge improvement.
Sod has been installed. Still not the most attractive structure ever designed but that corner looks way better than it has for the past 3-4 years.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14677  
Old Posted May 27, 2024, 5:39 PM
TitleRequired TitleRequired is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2024
Posts: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by sailor734 View Post
Sod has been installed. Still not the most attractive structure ever designed but that corner looks way better than it has for the past 3-4 years.
Agreed.

Did they get a variance for the setback? Seems really close to the sidewalk/road.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14678  
Old Posted May 27, 2024, 6:51 PM
Sabien Sabien is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Saint John, NB
Posts: 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by cdnguys View Post
Nobody knows what store it will be, even PetSmart employees
Any updated info on the construction at Eastpoint? It would've been quite costly dig that deep into solid bedrock. The footprint doesn't seem big enough for underground parking - plus that would be kind of crazy with the abundance of surface parking nearby.

Any guesses as to what purpose would warrant the cost?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14679  
Old Posted May 27, 2024, 7:02 PM
darkharbour darkharbour is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2021
Posts: 370
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabien View Post
Any updated info on the construction at Eastpoint? It would've been quite costly dig that deep into solid bedrock. The footprint doesn't seem big enough for underground parking - plus that would be kind of crazy with the abundance of surface parking nearby.

Any guesses as to what purpose would warrant the cost?
I thought someone stated earlier that it was a building for the developer's [the Northrups] company HQ, is that not the case?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14680  
Old Posted May 27, 2024, 7:04 PM
DyAm00394 DyAm00394 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Saint John, N.B
Posts: 1,281
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkharbour View Post
I thought someone stated earlier that it was a building for the developer's [the Northrups] company HQ, is that not the case?
Correct. Sources said a 3-level addition to the building. Ground floor retail space, Northup company offices above and a floor of underground parking reserved for the office employees.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Atlantic Provinces
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:47 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.