Development Rumours

[jthetzel]

Many fond memories of the Alt Hotels at YHZ and YYZ while fogged out of Torbay.

[Horsell]

This is great news, er rumor, hopefully we will see something “rise from the ashes” of this site soon. My only concern at this point is how it will look. If five stories is the height then that is no big deal, but will it suit the site, will it blend in with the area and will it have some access to the waterfront. Even the Southwest Properties proposed hotel wasn’t all that great in terms of a nice fit for the location, it was somewhat “generic”.
Looking at some of the Alt hotels on their website it is a fair comment to say that they aren’t exactly “cookie cutter” a la Holiday Inn, so perhaps they will recognize a need to present a design that says “St. John’s”, not “typical Canadian city”. We already have the industrial looking JAG, let’s step it up in terms of the architecture of “as yet unconfirmed Water/Prescott hotel”

[jthetzel]

Here are some neat pictures of the early 19th century Marshall Brothers' cellar underneath 123 Water Street, where the Alt Hotel is proposed: https://kinsmanphotosets.wordpress.c...others-cellar/ .

Alt Hotels typically have a little bar and bistro in the lobby (the Quebec Alt has a well-reviewed restaurant). With the Luxus Hotel's planned lounge across the street, and Raymonds next door, this section of Water Street could be bustling with foot traffic in a few years.

[Horsell]

From the council agenda for Sept 21st, re: the "vault" at 123-125 Water St and new Alt hotel:

"....wherein it is not recommended to attempt
integrating the brick vaulted wall into the structure of the proposed Alt Hotel, but
rather that it be demolished and disposed of in an approved manner"

"Reference was made to the possible alternate use of the bricks from the vault
that is not structural in nature, i.e. for landscaping or patio around the site.
Moved - Garnet Kindervater; Seconded – Shannie Duff
That the design be approved in principle subject to other planning review
considerations and that some of the vault’s brick and stone material be
utilized within the new structure’s design (i.e. landscaping, patio design,
planter structures, etc.) with a view to such being visually prominent for
historical representation in high profile areas of the building.
MOTION CARRIED "

Say good-bye to the Vault.

[Marty_Mcfly]

Oh that's a shame

[PoscStudent]

I thought an earlier story said Alt would incorporate the vault.

[Horsell]

Originally Posted by PoscStudent

I thought an earlier story said Alt would incorporate the vault.

Wayyyy back when Southwest Properties demolished the original buildings it was stipulated that the Vault be preserved with consideration to being incorporated into the new building. I guess things have now changed over time and it has been deemed not feasible to do so. The heritage committee has approved the removal of the Vault so I guess they have been convinced it can't be saved.

Another interesting comment from the minutes of the Heritage Committee meeting (Council Agenda Sept 21st)

"The upper storeys of the building will consist of modular units ready for assembly on the site"...that should be interesting to see during the construction phase.

[niccanning]

Originally Posted by Horsell

"The upper storeys of the building will consist of modular units ready for assembly on the site"...that should be interesting to see during the construction phase.

Is that like prefab?

I like the renderings!

[rthomasd]

That's how they do the large cruise ships now, the units are delivered all-ready-to-go and just slotted in to the structure. Amazing to watch how it's done, if you ever get a chance to see a TV program on it.

[PoscStudent]

Render via Twitter. https://twitter.com/happycitysj/stat...18865361633280

[jthetzel]

There was a demolition permit issued for 205 - 211 Duckworth Street. That's Danny Williams and Jack Harris' old law office which burned down in 2010. Any rumours of what might be moving in? It's a prominent location next to the war memorial.

[jthetzel]

Vaguely related, there is a nice write-up from O'Dea's Realty about the Tobin Building across the street from the burned down law office ( http://www.odea.ca/214duckworth/214duckworth.htm ). James Tobin built the house in 1894 and sold liquor, tobacco, and groceries from the first floor. Tobin also owned the bonded warehouse across the street, which became the ill-fated law office. The house continued to be operated as a liquor store until 1953. Amazingly, it was vacant from 1953 to 1984. Since then, it has been used by Hayward Interiors, Hutton's Music, and most recently Pollyanna Antiques. For $799,000, it's a steal. Of course, why pay $799,000 for four historic storeys on Duckworth overlooking the war memorial, harbour, and narrows, when you can pay over a million for a vinyl castle by the airport?

[Arrakis]

Originally Posted by jthetzel

Vaguely related, there is a nice write-up from O'Dea's Realty about the Tobin Building across the street from the burned down law office ( http://www.odea.ca/214duckworth/214duckworth.htm ). James Tobin built the house in 1894 and sold liquor, tobacco, and groceries from the first floor. Tobin also owned the bonded warehouse across the street, which became the ill-fated law office. The house continued to be operated as a liquor store until 1953. Amazingly, it was vacant from 1953 to 1984. Since then, it has been used by Hayward Interiors, Hutton's Music, and most recently Pollyanna Antiques. For $799,000, it's a steal. Of course, why pay $799,000 for four historic storeys on Duckworth overlooking the war memorial, harbour, and narrows, when you can pay over a million for a vinyl castle by the airport?

I enjoyed your little bit of history of the Pollyanna building but was thrown off by the last couple of lines when you then get all snarky towards people who do not wish to live downtown. To each their own in regards to where people choose to live. Living downtown is not everyone's cup of tea.

[overboard]

It's not an unreasonable tone to take. "Where to live" is not the simple or neutral choice it seems. There are tons (literally, when talking carbon emissions) of negative externalities inherent in the choice to live in a new-build outside the city. There are unique circumstances like a well-designed home for someone who works from home, but even then there are utilities, etc. to worry about. Sure, someone may have a simple preference for a big yard/lot and vinyl, but it's loaded with our cultural conditioning (which is pretty atrocious in terms of sustainability and history) and we should actively be trying to change some of these attitudes. Great city planning, which I think most people here are interested in, is not an exercise in "to each their own," but in ensuring density of development, deliverability of services, healthy/happy citizens, etc., very few of which are furthered by a "vinyl castle by the airport."

[Arrakis]

Originally Posted by overboard

It's not an unreasonable tone to take. "Where to live" is not the simple or neutral choice it seems. There are tons (literally, when talking carbon emissions) of negative externalities inherent in the choice to live in a new-build outside the city. There are unique circumstances like a well-designed home for someone who works from home, but even then there are utilities, etc. to worry about. Sure, someone may have a simple preference for a big yard/lot and vinyl, but it's loaded with our cultural conditioning (which is pretty atrocious in terms of sustainability and history) and we should actively be trying to change some of these attitudes. Great city planning, which I think most people here are interested in, is not an exercise in "to each their own," but in ensuring density of development, deliverability of services, healthy/happy citizens, etc., very few of which are furthered by a "vinyl castle by the airport."

Just saying that if you have $800,000 and buy a house on Duckworth Street doesnt make you any better a person than the same person who decides downtown living is not for them and prefers suburbia instead. (and the vinyl).

[overboard]

Originally Posted by Arrakis

Just saying that if you have $800,000 and buy a house on Duckworth Street doesnt make you any better a person than the same person who decides downtown living is not for them and prefers suburbia instead. (and the vinyl).

jthetzel didn't say they were "better people." I'm saying they are probably better for the city and environment, and the choice should be encouraged rather than presented as equal to all other options.

[Arrakis]

Perhaps I have overreacted a bit in interpreting his original comment. If so I apologize.

Originally Posted by overboard

jthetzel didn't say they were "better people." I'm saying they are probably better for the city and environment, and the choice should be encouraged rather than presented as equal to all other options.

[jthetzel]

Heard a rumour that the owner of Bryn Mawr / Baird's Cottage (154 New Cove Rd, St. John's) has applied for a demolition permit. Also heard a rumour that the owner is the same developer trying to demolish Richmond Cottage (though I haven't seen confirmatory evidence). Anyone seen anything to confirm or deny? I like to think of myself as more pro-development than not, especially on the west end of downtown, and in the various abandoned lots, and, say, Pleasantville, or perhaps our vast boreal forests on the outskirts of town. But is converting another historic enclave to a low-density sub-division benefitting our community? And does the community weigh in with teeth, or defer to the short-term interests of the developer?





Heritage Newfoundland and Labrador web page on Bryn Mawr

[Marty_Mcfly]

There's no way that'll ever get approved for demolition. A designated heritage structure that seems to still be in good shape? The city would be making a huge mistake allowing demolition of that. Hopefully they don't slip up on this.

Richmond Cottage, unfortunately, has been allowed to fall into such disrepair that it should be demolished. Not that I want it to be torn down, but no one in their right mind will pay the price tag for the property and still likely have to throw down half a million to repair it. The developer even took it upon themselves to destroy the lot, long gone are the mature trees. What a shame.

[jthetzel]

Originally Posted by Marty_Mcfly

There's no way that'll ever get approved for demolition. A designated heritage structure that seems to still be in good shape? The city would be making a huge mistake allowing demolition of that. Hopefully they don't slip up on this.

A concern is KMK Capital will allow Bryn Mawr to fall to neglect like Richmond Cottage. Also, I believe Bryn Mawr has provincial heritage status but not municipal heritage status (see pages 45 and 97 of http://www.stjohns.ca/sites/default/...s%20Report.pdf ). In the City of St. John's Act, only municipally protected buildings require review by Council prior to demolition. I'm less familiar with the provincial designation, but, legally, it might lack teeth. Staff might be able to just sign off on a demo permit. Happy to be proven wrong if someone is expert on the provincial law.

But I agree with you generally. Given the tension between Council and KMK Capital (through subsidiary Wrightland Development) over Richmond, it's unlikely that a provincially designated historic house, previously owned by the Baird family, and in seemingly great condition, will be allowed to be demolished. If so, though, I wonder what the strategy is for floating a trial demolition balloon? Seems like it would only breed acrimony. Maybe just worth it in case it slips through?