CBC N.L. Feature: Then and Now - Interactive Map of St. John's and Area: 1948 vs 2012

SignalHillHiker · #1 Posted **Oct 1, 2012, 1:15 AM**

http://www.cbc.ca/nl/features/newburbia/map/

AWESOME!

SignalHillHiker · #2 Posted **Oct 1, 2012, 1:16 AM**

The amount of land re-claimed in St. John's Harbour is absolutely terrifying. Half of downtown is on rubble from past fires. There's no bedrock under there.

Architype · #3 Posted **Oct 1, 2012, 1:24 AM**

It is amazing, but the maps are a bit out of alignment, making it appear that more land was reclaimed than there actually was.

Edit - also the Kenmount Road section should read 1968, not 1958, because the mall appears to be under construction in the photo.

Townie709 · #4 Posted **Oct 1, 2012, 1:37 AM**

Wow! That's really interesting! Kenmount road sure has changed! The only one that didn't change much is Mount Pearl!

SignalHillHiker · #5 Posted **Oct 1, 2012, 11:35 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Architype

It is amazing, but the maps are a bit out of alignment, making it appear that more land was reclaimed than there actually was.

Edit - also the Kenmount Road section should read 1968, not 1958, because the mall appears to be under construction in the photo.

Well, that's a relief! Thanks for the info.

jeddy1989 · #6 Posted **Oct 1, 2012, 4:54 PM**

Its interesting and cool to see... my nan use to tell me about how she would have picnics right next to Kenmount road and it was a simple dirt road .. oh how times have changed!

Townie709 · #7 Posted **Oct 1, 2012, 9:07 PM**

CBC's "Newburbia" coverage starts Wednesday on here and now for those who are interested!

AllBlack · #8 Posted **Oct 2, 2012, 1:26 AM**

Thanks for posting, I'm always fascinated by old photos of St. John's. Amazing that so much of today's city was farmland just a half century ago, including my entire neighbourhood.

Also noticed that the 1985 Kenmount Rd map has an aerial shot of the ill-fated Rankin Towers.

Townie709 · #9 Posted **Oct 2, 2012, 1:29 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by AllBlack

Thanks for posting, I'm always fascinated by old photos of St. John's. Amazing that so much of today's city was farmland just a half century ago, including my entire neighbourhood.

Also noticed that the 1985 Kenmount Rd map has an aerial shot of the ill-fated Rankin Towers.

What are the Rankin Towers??

AllBlack · #10 Posted **Oct 2, 2012, 1:45 AM**

An apartment building at the end of Beothuk St, maybe 9 stories (?). Only stood for a decade or so, torn down due to issues unknown to me. A long while ago, I believe someone posted an 80's panorama on the main St. John's thread which showed the building.

Architype · #11 Posted **Oct 2, 2012, 4:44 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Townie709

What are the Rankin Towers??

Someone posted the name which I didn't know, pages back here; it was there for years, but apparently had some leaks or possibly mold or structural problems probably because it was built of concrete block. . . and one day just vanished without a trace. It actually looks like 7 stories, and the address was 70 Beothuck Street.

Here is my old scanned image showing it (at the top), from around 1987.

SignalHillHiker · #12 Posted **Oct 2, 2012, 11:05 AM**

I never even heard of the Rankin Towers before. They look kind of cool, in an interesting location.

I wish St. John's had expanded in recent decades with the same density as it originally developed. That's one of my favourite things about the city - the residential density in the old town area is so great that we really punch above our weight in urbanity.

Imagine if Water and Duckworth were the only dense streets and everything else looked like the neighbourhoods along Topsail Road?

jeddy1989 · #13 Posted **Oct 2, 2012, 11:19 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SignalHillHiker

I never even heard of the Rankin Towers before. They look kind of cool, in an interesting location.

I wish St. John's had expanded in recent decades with the same density as it originally developed. That's one of my favourite things about the city - the residential density in the old town area is so great that we really punch above our weight in urbanity.

Imagine if Water and Duckworth were the only dense streets and everything else looked like the neighbourhoods along Topsail Road?

Then we would look like Moncton

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...24750&page=523

SignalHillHiker · #14 Posted **Oct 2, 2012, 11:54 AM**

Jeddy... I swear on my life I had that same example typed but backspaced because it seemed... unnecessary. But yes, I completely agree.

We're a comparable size - Moncton's Urban Area is 107,086, ours is 165,000. Their Metro is 176,644, ours is 198,000. But we look way bigger. And, since we're a comparable size, most of that difference has to be due to urbanity, I assume?

J_Murphy · #15 Posted **Oct 2, 2012, 12:00 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SignalHillHiker

I never even heard of the Rankin Towers before. They look kind of cool, in an interesting location.

I have not heard of them either until now. Can anyone provide any further details on them? I am curious as to why they were demolished. Thanks.

jeddy1989 · #16 Posted **Oct 2, 2012, 12:39 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SignalHillHiker

Jeddy... I swear on my life I had that same example typed but backspaced because it seemed... unnecessary. But yes, I completely agree.

We're a comparable size - Moncton's Urban Area is 107,086, ours is 165,000. Their Metro is 176,644, ours is 198,000. But we look way bigger. And, since we're a comparable size, most of that difference has to be due to urbanity, I assume?

However I don't think we are comparable (on population alone maybe) but when it comes to city's importance and maybe alot has to do with St. John's being of such importance for a few hundred years and being a former capital of a country and we put so much importance on the city as the centre of all in this end of things I suppose

I dont know what I'm going on about but hopefully you know what i mean lol

and yes alot has to do with our eary development I guess urban wise and socially/culturally also

statbass · #17 Posted **Oct 2, 2012, 12:52 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SignalHillHiker

Jeddy... I swear on my life I had that same example typed but backspaced because it seemed... unnecessary. But yes, I completely agree.

We're a comparable size - Moncton's Urban Area is 107,086, ours is 165,000. Their Metro is 176,644, ours is 198,000. But we look way bigger. And, since we're a comparable size, most of that difference has to be due to urbanity, I assume?

Actually, Moncton's metro population is about 138,000 (according to Stats Canada). If you compare metro density, Moncton - 57.6/km2 vs St. John's - 244.8/km2, but Moncton had a faster 5-year population growth: 9.7 versus 8.8 for St. John's.

Not to be negative towards Moncton, it's a beautiful, vibrant city but having visited I think St. John's does feel much bigger and I believe it is attributed to the difference in density.

jeddy1989 · #18 Posted **Oct 2, 2012, 12:56 PM**

Talking about all this got me curious so I looked at St. John's and Moncton from Satalite veiw and threw Halifax in there for fun .. you can see the size of the St. John's area (this doesnt even include the whole NEA

They are all from the same distance of 2km

interesting ...we have sprawled alot since this image has been updated too

SignalHillHiker · #19 Posted **Oct 2, 2012, 1:52 PM**

Is the scale for those three shots the same? If so, the sprawl southwest of St. John's is disgusting... it seems to cover a bigger area than Halifax.

jeddy1989 · #20 Posted **Oct 2, 2012, 1:57 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SignalHillHiker

Is the scale for those three shots the same? If so, the sprawl southwest of St. John's is disgusting... it seems to cover a bigger area than Halifax.

They are the same scale

I see one problem being Pippy Park it has kind of squished development north and south where as it would be more centred if the park were in another area (however at the time it was probably outside what they concidered the city)