The Official Saint John, NB Project Thread

[KnoxfordGuy]

Holy parking lot Batman!

[EnvisionSaintJohn]

Originally Posted by DyAm00394

From JDI on social media:

Thanks for posting the renderings.

The pedestrian overpass looks great and is what we need a lot more of in Saint John, but what a ridiculous proposed land use. Nothing about this looks temporary. This is prime real estate that should either remain a park, or be opened up for high rise development with underground parking that could retain the large majority of the green space.

This is the current view:



There’s solutions for parking west of Bridge Rd. This is just cheaper. The city shouldn’t approve this zoning amendment just because parking solutions elsewhere will cost more money. Politics is the art of the possible, city council should stick with the current zoning in accordance with Plan SJ, and work to find alternative solutions for parking at a less prime piece of real estate with one of the best vantage points of the city.

A smaller scale, temporary parking lot could make sense and be a good idea if it was to facilitate the mill expansion and then be opened up later for residential high rise development like we see in Moncton. It’s the perfect location for such a residential project, but it’s an absolutely terrible long term location for a giant, commercial parking lot. The city council should show some courage and stick up for the West Side here.

Parking could be increased at this property and then opened up later for residential development if the city could get JDI to come to a legal agreement that involves a long term plan of turning a short term parking lot into a long term residential development.

Surely the city, the province, and the largest construction company in Atlantic Canada could come to an agreement on a solution to get some much needed parking solutions for JDI’s expansion in the short term, that could later be transformed into housing solutions. This is a really beautiful spot in our city, and a giant parking lot taking over one of the most popular publicly accessible parks in our city would be quite a poor decision if it was for the long term. The city, the province, and JDI should work together to come up with a better long term vision for this important location to the Wolastoq community and West Side community.

We need housing more than parks, and a lot of green space could be saved with the right type of residential development at this location. These proposed renderings are horrendous in terms of how much green space will be replaced with pavement. There’s potential here for something so much more than a parking lot, especially for the long term.

I hope all the interested parties can collaborate and come to an agreement for a much better long term plan for the location than a giant parking lot. Otherwise, the city should ask them to sell the property back to the province, or to the city, if they no longer want a park zoned property at this location. The city shouldn’t just agree to rezoning because one company wants to build a parking lot on land that is currently zoned as parkland. I believe a win-win solution is possible for this property, if the powers that be can agree to collaborate and work together on a better long term solution than a giant parking lot with a million dollar view.

[EnvisionSaintJohn]

Originally Posted by Pugsley

Can't say I'm a big fan of this proposal. Erasing that much green space for a parking lot and a pedestrian bridge v. building a parking garage structure should be considered. A parking garage to house all employees in one on-site facility would 1) make the overall park space and Reversing Falls park more attractive and useful for residents and 2) allow them to free up some of the other on-site parking lots - allowing future expansion.

I hope they reconsider this.

There’s gotta be more than enough room where the Simms paintbrush factory was, or somewhere else on site to build a parking garage with just as many spots as this proposed parking lot. They’re also really trying to point out the bus stops, but I don’t think hardly any mill workers actually take the bus to work.

[TitleRequired]

Originally Posted by Pugsley

Can't say I'm a big fan of this proposal. Erasing that much green space for a parking lot and a pedestrian bridge v. building a parking garage structure should be considered. A parking garage to house all employees in one on-site facility would 1) make the overall park space and Reversing Falls park more attractive and useful for residents and 2) allow them to free up some of the other on-site parking lots - allowing future expansion.

I hope they reconsider this.

Why would they? They have the land they bought, while they would have considered alternatives; this may fit in their future plans better.

This is private land, that they generously permit us to use. To suggest alternatives when it is not your pocketbook nor land is a foolish errand.

[adamuptownsj]

Originally Posted by TitleRequired

Why would they? They have the land they bought, while they would have considered alternatives; this may fit in their future plans better.

This is private land, that they generously permit us to use. To suggest alternatives when it is not your pocketbook nor land is a foolish errand.

Eh, it IS zoned as park land. Irving either consented to or requested this parkland zoning. The city is under no obligation to change that zoning.

Irving could build a garage at cost, and not build the pedestrian overpass here.

[Pugsley]

Originally Posted by adamuptownsj

Eh, it IS zoned as park land. Irving either consented to or requested this parkland zoning. The city is under no obligation to change that zoning.

Irving could build a garage at cost, and not build the pedestrian overpass here.

THAT, and they no doubt got some great tax breaks for donated the space originally as park land. Just because they own the land and it is THEIR pocketbooks, it doesn't mean it hasn't been funded to some extend through the taxpayer. Be it property tax incentives, Green funding, or other charitable giving benefits, etc. At the end of the day, one cannot simply say "its their land and money...let them do what they want with it". There are economic, traffic, public works budgeting, infrastructure, environmental, and social cost considerations that comes with any development which the city (aka taxpayer) inherently ends up covering from any such development - be they short-term or long-term.

[EnvisionSaintJohn]

Originally Posted by TitleRequired

Why would they? They have the land they bought, while they would have considered alternatives; this may fit in their future plans better.

This is private land, that they generously permit us to use. To suggest alternatives when it is not your pocketbook nor land is a foolish errand.

Maybe selling them the land in the first place in 1998 was the real fools errand.

[TitleRequired]

Originally Posted by Pugsley

THAT, and they no doubt got some great tax breaks for donated the space originally as park land. Just because they own the land and it is THEIR pocketbooks, it doesn't mean it hasn't been funded to some extend through the taxpayer. Be it property tax incentives, Green funding, or other charitable giving benefits, etc. At the end of the day, one cannot simply say "its their land and money...let them do what they want with it". There are economic, traffic, public works budgeting, infrastructure, environmental, and social cost considerations that comes with any development which the city (aka taxpayer) inherently ends up covering from any such development - be they short-term or long-term.

Its a moot point anyway, JDI will get their parking lot. Not unlike the house they demolished uptown; they can wait.

They can even hold the project hostage until approval. A few calls from union business managers to councilors would clarify expectations.

It is very doubtful anyone on council would oppose this in the least. What's the upside in antagonizing JDI, none.

And they are paying taxes on the property, to the tune of $16k/year.

https://paol-efel.snb.ca/paol.html?v=1.0.37&lang=en&pan=05103544

[cdnguys]

Originally Posted by Pugsley

Can't say I'm a big fan of this proposal. Erasing that much green space for a parking lot and a pedestrian bridge v. building a parking garage structure should be considered. A parking garage to house all employees in one on-site facility would 1) make the overall park space and Reversing Falls park more attractive and useful for residents and 2) allow them to free up some of the other on-site parking lots - allowing future expansion.

I hope they reconsider this.

Did I hear that it’s temp for project, then restored to park when done?

[EnvisionSaintJohn]

Originally Posted by cdnguys

Did I hear that it’s temp for project, then restored to park when done?

The pavement in the renderings look pretty permanent, doesn’t it?

A temporary project would obviously be preferable.

[EnvisionSaintJohn]

Originally Posted by TitleRequired

Its a moot point anyway, JDI will get their parking lot. Not unlike the house they demolished uptown; they can wait.

They can even hold the project hostage until approval. A few calls from union business managers to councilors would clarify expectations.

It is very doubtful anyone on council would oppose this in the least. What's the upside in antagonizing JDI, none.

And they are paying taxes on the property, to the tune of $16k/year.

https://paol-efel.snb.ca/paol.html?v=1.0.37&lang=en&pan=05103544

Wow a whole 16k a year? Well then, let them do whatever they want with it!

Why hold a billion dollar project hostage instead of just building a parking garage or finding other alternative solutions? They’re going to get their parking lot, that’s for sure, but not necessarily one as large as the ones they’ve proposed here.

[Pugsley]

Originally Posted by TitleRequired

And they are paying taxes on the property, to the tune of $16k/year.

https://paol-efel.snb.ca/paol.html?v=1.0.37&lang=en&pan=05103544

So, double what I pay a year in taxes?

[TitleRequired]

Originally Posted by Pugsley

So, double what I pay a year in taxes?

Across the road https://paol-efel.snb.ca/paol.html?v=1.0.37&lang=en&pan=06536091

Tax bill is 2.8M$.

You'll need a bigger shrug. Or a bigger asset base.

[NewIreland]

Originally Posted by adamuptownsj

Eh, it IS zoned as park land. Irving either consented to or requested this parkland zoning. The city is under no obligation to change that zoning.

Irving could build a garage at cost, and not build the pedestrian overpass here.

I agree that a parking garage would be a more better option from a resident's point of view. It certainly would be much nicer to look at and save a bunch of parkland from being paved over. However, as much as this irks me (still upset over the demolition of the heritage home uptown), why would they build a parking garage for a bunch of temporary workers? That being said, man, the Simm's brush factory would have made a beautiful parking garage! Irving is always looking at their bottom line, and while they're not overly frugal, they certainly don't like wasting money.

[sailor734]

I see the new building behind the Tipsy Tomato is advertising on FB marketplace. 2BR for $2200. Would it be fair to call these pretty middle of the road? (decent but unremarkable).

https://www.facebook.com/marketplace/item/540078118498461

One downside I see is that given the plans for the car wash and commercial area next door to be demolished and replaced with two more buildings you would be living in a construction site for several years to come.

[sailor734]

Originally Posted by EnvisionSaintJohn

The pavement in the renderings look pretty permanent, doesn’t it?

A temporary project would obviously be preferable.

Story in this AM's TJ suggests and parking lot would not be paved

https://tj.news/saint-john-south/irving-pulp-mill-wants-parking-lot-in-wolostoq-park

Since it was announced on Sept. 17, McInerney said she has had to clarify that the parking lot will not be paved. Asked about the green space being used, she said it would be minimal.

“This is a rezoning process that would see us able to take our current property which we bought 20 years ago and turned it into its current iteration, which is a park,” she said. “And we’ve requested permission to have 30 per cent of that parkland that JD Irving owns converted for parking.”

According to the release, the parking lot would be placed in an area currently underutilized, “thus preserving the best views of the harbour currently enjoyed by the public. Further enhancements included the relocation and refurbishment of existing historical statues, moving the picnic amenities to an area with better views and the refurbishment of existing staircases on the site.”

[EnvisionSaintJohn]

Originally Posted by sailor734

Story in this AM's TJ suggests and parking lot would not be paved

https://tj.news/saint-john-south/irving-pulp-mill-wants-parking-lot-in-wolostoq-park

Since it was announced on Sept. 17, McInerney said she has had to clarify that the parking lot will not be paved. Asked about the green space being used, she said it would be minimal.

“This is a rezoning process that would see us able to take our current property which we bought 20 years ago and turned it into its current iteration, which is a park,” she said. “And we’ve requested permission to have 30 per cent of that parkland that JD Irving owns converted for parking.”

According to the release, the parking lot would be placed in an area currently underutilized, “thus preserving the best views of the harbour currently enjoyed by the public. Further enhancements included the relocation and refurbishment of existing historical statues, moving the picnic amenities to an area with better views and the refurbishment of existing staircases on the site.”

I’m not hearing a lot of the word temporary here… which would make this a proposal a lot less concerning. We’ve seen the renderings, to claim the loss of green space would be minimal is just BS. The main part of the park might be in improved, but they still want the city to rezone park land to “stable commercial”.

The city shouldn’t just roll over here and let them change the zoning of a pretty considerable piece of land adjacent to one of the city’s premier tourist destinations, Reversing Falls. Allowing for a temporary exception for the use as parking without changing the zoning would be better for the long term urban planning of that area. The only zoning change the city ought to entertain for such a property should be for residential development.

That tiny little parcel of land adjacent to Rockwood Park being proposed for residential development caused such quite a lot of outrage. This long term zoning proposal for light commercial a stable commercial zoning next to Wolastoq Park is far more outrageous.

Here’s hoping the city has grown a backbone and will give JDI some push back to find alternative parking solutions that don’t involve rezoning parkland as commercial property.

[sailor734]

Originally Posted by EnvisionSaintJohn

I’m not hearing a lot of the word temporary here… which would make this a proposal a lot less concerning. We’ve seen the renderings, to claim the loss of green space would be minimal is just BS. The main part of the park might be in improved, but they still want the city to rezone park land as “stable commercial”.

The city shouldn’t just roll over here and let them change the zoning of a pretty considerable piece of land adjacent to one of the city’s premier tourist destinations, Reversing Falls. Allowing for a temporary exception for the use as parking without changing the zoning would be a better for the long term planning of that area. The only zoning change the city ought to entertain for such a property should be for residential development.

That tiny little parcel of land adjacent to Rockwood Park being proposed for residential development caused such quite a lot of outrage. This long term zoning proposal for light commercial a stable commercial zoning next to Wolastoq Park is far more outrageous.

Here’s hoping the city has grown a backbone and will give JDI some push back to find alternative parking solutions that don’t involve rezoning parkland as commercial property.

I like the idea of granting a variance with a sunset clause. (If that is even possible under city powers)

The proposed scope/cost of the pedway does suggest a more permanent change.

[EnvisionSaintJohn]

Originally Posted by sailor734

I like the idea of granting a variance with a sunset clause. (If that is even possible under city powers)

The proposed scope/cost of the pedway does suggest a more permanent change.

The city could just allow them to use the parkland as a temporary parking lot, or possibly amend the bylaws themselves to allow for temporary parking lots to operate on parkland on a case by case basis.

There’s got to be some kind of legal solution to allow for nothing more than a temporary usage as a parking lot without changing the zoning from parkland.

Zoning bylaws and parking enforcement are ultimately municipal responsibilities, the city can come up with a creative solution to make sure this use as a parking lot is only temporary.

[adamuptownsj]

Green Zone rumour mill. As with my earlier post about the East side spot, please salt heavily.

West side residents are convinced it'll be between Prince and the throughway, off of Riverview (behind Olsen's)

Over north, the PID between Taylor and Somerset off Taylor is what multiple people are convinced of.

South, could be anywhere, but we will likely be blessed with two. I assume one of them is the public ROW between Garden, Station, and the Somerset overpass.

All of these sound plausible. What's with the delayed announcement, and will it actually come with clearing out encampments outside of these areas?