[St. John's] The Steel-Toe Boot Squad - Page 9

rwspencer38 · #**161** Posted **Feb 13, 2013, 5:27 PM**

I would consider running. Always though politics were in my future, just never thought it would be municipal!

jeddy1989 · #**162** Posted **Feb 13, 2013, 6:08 PM**

I am going to run

edit: This is not my official announcement however I will say that I have full intentions to run

SignalHillHiker · #**163** Posted **Feb 13, 2013, 6:08 PM**

Yay!

Excellent news!

Townie709 · #**164** Posted **Feb 13, 2013, 6:13 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeddy1989

I am going to run

Woot Woot!!!!!!

rwspencer38 · #**165** Posted **Feb 13, 2013, 6:16 PM**

Good Stuff!!

SignalHillHiker · #**166** Posted **Feb 15, 2013, 6:27 PM**

Thanks, everyone.

I hope all of you, if you're comfortable doing so, will join us next time.

Now I just have to keep my fingers crossed that supporting the rezoning doesn't result in this atrocity being built as currently proposed, ha!

I want modern on that site.

Copes · #**167** Posted **Feb 26, 2013, 7:33 PM**

Is anyone going to the meeting on Downtown CBS tonight?

jeddy1989 · #**168** Posted **Feb 26, 2013, 7:35 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Copes

Is anyone going to the meeting on Downtown CBS tonight?

I think it'd be nice to go even if it's just to sit in
?

SignalHillHiker · #**169** Posted **Feb 26, 2013, 7:38 PM**

I can't tonight - sorry, all. But I do think it's something we should participate in.

Copes · #**170** Posted **Feb 26, 2013, 7:55 PM**

I'd be interested in sitting in as well, but I don't think I can make it tonight unfortunately. Was kind of hoping SOMEONE would be there so I could get an update from them on how it went.

SignalHillHiker · #**171** Posted **Feb 28, 2013, 3:17 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by rthomasd

There's a Letter to the Editor in today's Telegram in opposition to the project.

"Condo complex woes
On March 11, St. John's city council will consider an application to construct two residential condominiums 16 stories in height containing 240 units at 50 Tiffany Lane.

These buildings will be adjacent to Mary Queen of peace School and tower over Kenny's Pond.

The height is six storeys higher than the existing 10-storey Tiffany Village assisted living building. I believe that at the time of that building, approval was granted using the sightline of the tip of the spire on the adjacent Salvation Army building and not on the height of any other buildings in the area.

Road access appears to be through the school's parking lot or via Tiffany Lane, which is only a lane.

I am in despair of city council's decisions and can only hope this development can be curtailed before it is too late. I have emailed my objections to cityclerk@stjohns.ca and beg other residents to do so before March 7.

Elizabeth Winter, St. John's "

You know what to do.

jeddy1989 · #**172** Posted **Feb 28, 2013, 3:19 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SignalHillHiker

You know what to do.

I was just about to post the same thing lol

what sightlines? lol ... I have NO Idea what people are looking at on torbay road or Kenmount road .. not understanding :S

Ayreonaut · #**173** Posted **Feb 28, 2013, 3:25 PM**

And just having access from a lane isn't a big deal. It's not like the residents will spend entire days driving in and out of the area. Much of Calgary's Beltline - full of apartment buildings - is virtually void of vehicle traffic 90% of the time because people are at work.

statbass · #**174** Posted **Feb 28, 2013, 3:28 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeddy1989

I was just about to post the same thing lol

what sightlines? lol ... I have NO Idea what people are looking at on torbay road or Kenmount road .. not understanding :S

We all knew this was going to happen. We just have to rebut with letters of support for this project. This is one I really love to see get the go-ahead. As I'm sure pretty much everyone here feels the same way.

I plan on sending in my letter of support in the next day or two.

SignalHillHiker · #**175** Posted **Feb 28, 2013, 3:33 PM**

Sent mine:

Quote:

Good day,

I'm writing to express my support for the proposed 16-floor Tiffany Condos project.

As a city, we can no longer afford to be afraid of height and density outside of the heritage areas we have a duty to protect. Stantec indicated in its proposal that increasing the height and density of the buildings makes greater amenities possible and more affordable for future residents. The same is true of our city as a whole.

We simply cannot afford to continue forcing our city to build and pay to maintain suburban sprawl simply because some residents refuse to accept they live in city and insist on preventing any development for selfish reasons counter-productive to the sustainability and vibrancy of our city as a whole.

Do some residents actually believe they have a right to stop a development such as this one because of shadows? Stantec even notes in its proposal that shorter buildings will cast a wider shadow that will impact surrounding properties even longer.

To me, that is a primitive way of thinking and one which our city cannot afford to follow. Rabid anti-development activism such as this is why we are still a city of just 200,000 while other cities with a fraction of our resource wealth, such as Calgary, have grown from smaller than us to more than a million residents in the span of a few decades. And, as Calgary's mayor Naheed Nenshi said when he visited St. John's, "If you want young people to stay, build a city where young people want to live."

As a young man in my 30s, I want a smartly-planned city with a bright future - not an expanse of single-family, detached homes that spreads from here to Clarenville, where we can't even get a single condo project approved because of shadows.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with this proposed development. It increases density, brings in much more money for the city, makes servicing these lots in the future more affordable... it is a win/win situation. I will be horrified and deeply disappointed if this proposal isn't approved for reasons that should be laughed out of any council chambers.

Thank you.

AllBlack · #**176** Posted **Feb 28, 2013, 3:49 PM**

Wonderful job SHH. Very well reasoned and passionate.

Where are we sending these letters? The Telegram or city hall?

I'll get one going too.

SignalHillHiker · #**177** Posted **Feb 28, 2013, 3:53 PM**

I never even considered The Telegram. I guess we could try.

EDIT: Altered it slightly for The Telegram and clicked send. Fingers crossed.

rthomasd · #**178** Posted **Feb 28, 2013, 4:01 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by statbass

We all knew this was going to happen. We just have to rebut with letters of support for this project. This is one I really love to see get the go-ahead. As I'm sure pretty much everyone here feels the same way.

I plan on sending in my letter of support in the next day or two.

I plan to write in support of it as well.
We have to emphasize that this is a change request to an already approved concept that had 5 buildings, with a much larger footprint. This smaller-footprint, taller development is what the city should be supporting AND encouraging.

It's important for all of us to express our support, since it appears the media report on public reaction based on # of yes vs # of no and not on the merits or nature of the support or opposition. I was glad to see at the last meeting a councillor say that private viewplanes should not impact a project proposal.

statbass · #**179** Posted **Feb 28, 2013, 5:07 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by AllBlack

Wonderful job SHH. Very well reasoned and passionate.

Where are we sending these letters? The Telegram or city hall?

I'll get one going too.

I just sent my support letter to city councillors.

Copes · #**180** Posted **Feb 28, 2013, 6:24 PM**

Letter to the Telegram was the say to go Signal. Since apparently that is where this misses voiced her concern, it makes sense that we should do the same.

It might actually be a good idea to try and get some Letters to the Editor into the Telegram more frequently. It probably is a better means of impacting opinion than appearing at development input sessions (although those are important too). Your letter not only supports the project, but it explains WHY it is good. I think this is a big deal for our message. Tie it back into urban planning theory. Explain why a lack of density and development is actually detrimental to our growth.