The Official Saint John, NB Project Thread - Page 251

PersonPlaceorThing · #**5001** Posted **Feb 11, 2010, 12:07 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by dhottawa729

I'm very surprised of the coverage of most or rural canada as well! But this could be bad... I always wanted to drive through the Rocky Mountains in the summer and now I have less of a desire to go because I just went there on Google maps

Oh well, on the upside, that's $1000 in my pocket!! Thanks Google! I think.

I've gone through the mountains on Via Rail. Perhaps you could do that - there's not Streetview of the tracks.

michael_d40 · #**5002** Posted **Feb 11, 2010, 6:07 PM**

Noticed yesterday the sign for Harbourfront Residences is back up on Water street.
So JRocca, I ask - Is construction slated to start very soon?

kwajo · #**5003** Posted **Feb 11, 2010, 6:50 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by michael_d40

Noticed yesterday the sign for Harbourfront Residences is back up on Water street.
So JRocca, I ask - Is construction slated to start very soon?

Someone told me March, I'm hoping this is accurate, it'd be exciting to see a couple new projects Uptown with this along with the courthouse

JHikka · #**5004** Posted **Feb 11, 2010, 7:24 PM**

I heard some of the people who had put forth money for the project were having quite a hard time getting it back.

PersonPlaceorThing · #**5005** Posted **Feb 11, 2010, 7:48 PM**

From http://urbanplans.blogspot.com:

94.1 FM news is reporting that corporate pollster Don Mills says that the cancellation of the IOL headquarters on Long Wharf is devastating for the waterfront development in the city. Here’s an excerpt from the article:

"Mills says the city is not going to be able to find another flagship development for the Waterfront, which is devastating for the municipality."

While I agree that the cancellation of the project is disappointing I have to call shenanigans on such a bold claim.

The city and the Waterfront Development Partnership have a master plan for the waterfront that was widely praised. This plan did not include IOL at Long Wharf, until the project was made public years later. If the plan is good and other projects proceed, then I can’t see how Irving’s cancellation sets the waterfront back a decade as the article claims.

While I’ve made criticisms of how slow certain projects have proceeded (cough… Coast Guard site development… three years behind schedule… cough) the waterfront plan and developments are more robust than Mills seems to suggest.

The Rocca Condos are one example of a project that could be proceeding soon and Bentley Crossing continues to grow. These are projects that facilitate population growth, something far more important for the central city than a relocation of some employees.

JRocca · #**5006** Posted **Feb 15, 2010, 11:49 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by kwajo

Someone told me March, I'm hoping this is accurate, it'd be exciting to see a couple new projects Uptown with this along with the courthouse

I have said in the past that there are times when I cannot respond to postings for a variety of reasons.This is one of those topics that I will not comment on.
What I can tell you is what is on the record.We told condo buyers last fall that we would start construction the end of March/beginning of April, once the frost was out of the ground.

JRocca · #**5007** Posted **Feb 16, 2010, 1:09 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by GregHickman

I heard some of the people who had put forth money for the project were having quite a hard time getting it back.

Implied in your comment is that the person asking for the money back has the right to get it back.
For the record, we do not have access to nor control the purchaser's deposits. All Purchasers' deposits are held in trust by a law firm and invested in an interest bearing account for the benefit of the PURCHASER, not for us.
It's held in trust to ensure that the Purchaser will honor his commitment to buy the condo.
We obligated ourselves to build the purchaser a condo and we agreed to wait until we give the buyer the keys to their condo before we get the deposit and the balance of the purchase price.
The Purchaser in turn agreed to buy the condo and as security for his promise to buy it, he agreed to give our law firm a deposit that would be forfeited if he changed his mind about buying it.
That deposit-and the buyer's promise to pay the balance of the purchase price-is then assigned by the developer to the lender that puts up the money to build the project.At that stage, we have a third party that also has rights under that contract.
We can't say to the law firm: "we've changed our mind about building the condo but give us the Purchaser's money,anyway", anymore than the condo buyer can say to the law firm: "we've changed our mind about buying the condo so give us back our deposit."
So,the next time you hear about someone that's having "a hard time" getting their money back, I would appreciate it if you ask them why they want their money back so that you can decide for yourself whether they are having a hard time getting it back because they are trying to break their contract or we are.
Please don't always assume that the complainant must be right simply because he is complaining.Get the facts and then decide who is giving who a hard time.
Again, we don't have their money nor will we ever have access to a condo buyer's money until the day we give him the keys to his condo.The only right we have, is the right to tell the law firm that we object to the release of a deposit because its release is a violation of the contract.

JHikka · #**5008** Posted **Feb 17, 2010, 2:51 PM**

As reported by CHSJ, there is a possible new redevelopment plan of the Crescent Valley area.

I'll save my pessimism for when this is fully announced.

kwajo · #**5009** Posted **Feb 17, 2010, 2:55 PM**

Gee I bet it includes more subsidized housing and a token green space, that'll really do wonders for the neighbourhood! YAY!

JHikka · #**5010** Posted **Feb 17, 2010, 3:39 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by kwajo

Gee I bet it includes more subsidized housing and a token green space, that'll really do wonders for the neighbourhood! YAY!

Non-Profit Housing. Non-Profit Housing. Non-Profit Housing. Non-Profit Housing. Non-Profit Housing. Non-Profit Housing. Non-Profit Housing. Non-Profit Housing. Non-Profit Housing. Non-Profit Housing. Non-Profit Housing. Non-Profit Housing. Non-Profit Housing. Non-Profit Housing. Non-Profit Housing. Non-Profit Housing. Non-Profit Housing. Non-Profit Housing. Non-Profit Housing. Non-Profit Housing. Non-Profit Housing.

michael_d40 · #**5011** Posted **Feb 17, 2010, 5:20 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by GregHickman

Non-Profit Housing. Non-Profit Housing. Non-Profit Housing. Non-Profit Housing. Non-Profit Housing. Non-Profit Housing. Non-Profit Housing. Non-Profit Housing. Non-Profit Housing. Non-Profit Housing. Non-Profit Housing. Non-Profit Housing. Non-Profit Housing. Non-Profit Housing. Non-Profit Housing. Non-Profit Housing. Non-Profit Housing. Non-Profit Housing. Non-Profit Housing. Non-Profit Housing. Non-Profit Housing.

Didnt think we would see a traffic circle in that location. Should be interesting.
I suppose though.. According to all the homes going in that area, It might be needed.

It includes new multi-storey high rises, five new four storey apartment buildings, semi-detached and new row homes. Lamrock says there is no price tag involved with the proposal just yet.

If the entire project lives up to it's potential, there would be 1373 new homes constructed in the area. Minister Lamrock says they hope to begin phase one which is replacing some of the homes lost on Churchill Boulevard this year.

PersonPlaceorThing · #**5012** Posted **Feb 17, 2010, 7:30 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by GregHickman

Non-Profit Housing. Non-Profit Housing. Non-Profit Housing. Non-Profit Housing. Non-Profit Housing. Non-Profit Housing. Non-Profit Housing. Non-Profit Housing. Non-Profit Housing. Non-Profit Housing. Non-Profit Housing. Non-Profit Housing. Non-Profit Housing. Non-Profit Housing. Non-Profit Housing. Non-Profit Housing. Non-Profit Housing. Non-Profit Housing. Non-Profit Housing. Non-Profit Housing. Non-Profit Housing.

Proper use of subsidized housing and non-profit corporations can lead to diverse community development - perhpas leading to better results than private for profit development.

Of course, that rarely works. Still.

MonctonRad · #**5013** Posted **Feb 17, 2010, 8:05 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by PersonPlaceorThing

Proper use of subsidized housing and non-profit corporations can lead to diverse community development - perhpas leading to better results than private for profit development.

Of course, that rarely works. Still.

Subsidized housing should be incorporated into the community in general. To build subsidized housing "developments" only creates ghettos.

JHikka · #**5014** Posted **Feb 17, 2010, 8:14 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Subsidized housing should be incorporated into the community in general. To build subsidized housing "developments" only creates ghettos.

This exactly. Ghettos that don't pay property taxes and with little revenue generated from utilities.

PersonPlaceorThing · #**5015** Posted **Feb 17, 2010, 8:25 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by GregHickman

This exactly. Ghettos that don't pay property taxes and with little revenue generated from utilities.

The owners (CMHC and NB Housing, I believe) paid over $250,000 in 2009 for the Churchill Blvd properties.

The assessment lookup tool is fun.

PersonPlaceorThing · #**5016** Posted **Feb 17, 2010, 8:29 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Subsidized housing should be incorporated into the community in general. To build subsidized housing "developments" only creates ghettos.

From the look of the proposed development, there is more of an intermingling of housing types (and presumably tenant and ownership types) in the "new" and "improved" Churchill Blvd area.

kwajo · #**5017** Posted **Feb 17, 2010, 11:27 PM**

Why couldn't we get 1300+ new housing units in our urban areas? Imagine 500 new Uptown/South End units, 400 new North End units and 400 new units in the Lower West Side. Imagine what that could do for the city!

dhottawa729 · #**5018** Posted **Feb 18, 2010, 12:40 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by kwajo

Why couldn't we get 1300+ new housing units in our urban areas? Imagine 500 new Uptown/South End units, 400 new North End units and 400 new units in the Lower South End. Imagine what that could do for the city!

That's a good point. We very badly need more residential density in the uptown/south end. There are plenty of derelict houses, greyfields and brownfields that need to be replaced with mid to high rise condos or at lease multi-unit townhouses. Private commercial investment will naturally follow.

JHikka · #**5019** Posted **Feb 18, 2010, 1:19 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by kwajo

Why couldn't we get 1300+ new housing units in our urban areas? Imagine 500 new Uptown/South End units, 400 new North End units and 400 new units in the Lower West Side. Imagine what that could do for the city!

Agreed, but no, we'll stick 'em in Crescent Valley. I wonder where they'll find all of the tenants for these homes. I can't imagine actual home-owners wanting to "intermingle" with the rest of the people in the area.

kwajo · #**5020** Posted **Feb 18, 2010, 1:55 AM**

It also doesn't sit well with me because this is a major addition to the residential sector of the city, happening just as the city is re-inventing its entire planning process and re-establishing a very tight urban growth zone - which this falls outside of. I doubt this higher density of subsidized housing in an area outside of the urban growth area is going to be very congruent with what the new municipal plan is trying to achieve.