HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Atlantic Provinces > St. John's

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #801  
Old Posted Oct 29, 2014, 6:07 PM
displacednewfie displacednewfie is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Edmonton,Alberta(work) St. John's, NL (where my heart is)
Posts: 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by goodgrowth View Post
Kinda rant-ish but...

I hope housing prices and in particular traffic will continue to get worse..it's the only way people will start to accept urbanization/living in a city.

The northeast avalon is probably 75% subdivisions with a random web (if you can even call it that) of roads. I would seriously guess 50% of the vehicles on the road are pickup trucks (most with nothing in the back) .

At some point the sprawl will make it too expensive to live the suburban lifestyle for this many people. At some point TALL BUILDINGS will have to go up. Yes people, TALL BUILDINGS maybe even some as high as a whopping 8+ stories. At some point people will not want to rent an apartment unless it is near public transportation. At some point amalgamation might be a good idea at least with mount pearl/paradise.

Also another point that needs to be made...a lot of homeowners (voters) in the St. John's area have a stake in the council NOT approving apartment/condo buildings. As soon as you start putting up high density apartments/condos this will simultaneously lower basement renters demand and house purchasing demand thus lower prices. Not good if you have a $400,000 mortgage. Too bad I say...not a legitimate reason to prevent proper urbanization.

It's only a matter of time before more developers see a market for high density buildings and the council will have to start approving them.

Also I'm that believer that if you want to have more "mixed used" or "closer to amenities" areas that you can't put cart before the horse not matter how good the planning is. In other words allow/approve high density residential buildings/areas and the stores/businesses will follow. This isn't saying don't plan but mixed use is not going to happen unless the density is there.

OK finished.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #802  
Old Posted Nov 25, 2014, 12:30 PM
Horsell's Avatar
Horsell Horsell is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 536
There is another public hearing scheduled for the multi-unit development in Brookfield Plains that is part in St. John's and Mount Pearl. It has now changed to apartments and it is the same cookie cutter design they proposed for Clovelly and Kenmount Terrace instead of the other, a little more creative, condo / retail proposal from last year.

http://www.stjohns.ca/public-notice/...ancis-street-0
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #803  
Old Posted Nov 28, 2014, 9:40 PM
delesseps delesseps is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 94
Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Horsell View Post
There is another public hearing scheduled for the multi-unit development in Brookfield Plains that is part in St. John's and Mount Pearl. It has now changed to apartments and it is the same cookie cutter design they proposed for Clovelly and Kenmount Terrace instead of the other, a little more creative, condo / retail proposal from last year.

http://www.stjohns.ca/public-notice/...ancis-street-0
I'll be making a written submission. Here are the high points.
  • Per sections 11.12.1 and 11.12.2 of the Mount Pearl Development Regulations 2010, apartments are a discretionary use in the commercial general zone unless located above a permitted use listed in section 11.12.1. [...] I ask that the City of Mount Pearl grant the discretionary height increase on the condition that any buildings on the section of the subject property in the commercial general zone shall contain permitted uses only. This would encourage the development of ground-level shops or services geared toward residents in the proposed development and the surrounding residential neighbourhood
  • The use of silt fences, as proposed by Northern Property, is not sufficient to control silted run-off during construction and should be combined with the retention of natural vegetation wherever possible and the use of other best practices such as infiltration trenches. In order to minimize the impact of the proposed development on Flynn’s Brook, I ask that the City of Mount Pearl require the proponent to maintain the natural vegetation within the 15 m development buffer using the powers included in section 6.19.1(a) of the Mount Pearl Development Regulations 2010. I am also concerned about the long-term, cumulative impact of development in the Waterford River watershed. [...] Before granting any approvals, I ask that the City of St. John’s and the City of Mount Pearl require the proponent to submit an environmental analysis report. I also ask that the City of St. John' s examine its policies regarding connections to storm sewers and consider requiring new developments to implement best practices to optimise the quality of all water discharged to municipal storm sewers.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #804  
Old Posted Dec 3, 2014, 7:09 PM
Horsell's Avatar
Horsell Horsell is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 536
Excellent points.

The original proposal (the "highrise" one) did have a commercial component, I wonder what things have changed now?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #805  
Old Posted Dec 4, 2014, 12:58 AM
SignalHillHiker's Avatar
SignalHillHiker SignalHillHiker is offline
I ♣ Baby Seals
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: See post below...
Posts: 25,565
__________________
Note to self: "The plural of anecdote is not evidence."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #806  
Old Posted Dec 6, 2014, 8:37 PM
delesseps delesseps is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 94
Bennett's Brook

The restoration of Bennett's Brook came up in connection with the redevelopment of the Grace Hospital site at the Doing Density Right session at Wesley United Church on Thursday. Currently, the brook flows out of Mundy Pond through the culvert shown and enters the Grace Hospital site somewhere near the former West Fire Station. The original streambed is obvious in the upper reaches of Victoria Park, but is buried under the softball field down the hill. Has there been any news about the restoration of Victoria Park since the press conference in May? I was away this summer, so I missed any consultations that might have happened, but I'm pleased to know the mayor is supportive of restoring Bennett's Brook. Upgrading the ball field near Holy Cross Elementary and restoring the original grade in Victoria Park would please everyone involved, but I'm concerned that there doesn't seem to be any fundraising underway for Victoria Park like there was for Bannerman Park.


by Northeast Avalon ACAP, on Flickr

St. John's is generally bad at "green infrastructure", having missed opportunities to restore parts of Kelly's Brook or Leary's Brook during the storm sewer replacement on Hoyles Avenue and the drafting of the Rennie's River Catchment Stormwater Management Plan. The plan seeks to mitigate the flood risk from planned development in the watershed with dikes and walls instead of considering a development strategy that limits the net increase in impervious area. The city's current strategy of limiting post-development peak runoff is not entirely effective, since it only shifts runoff from an individual site's peak, increasing flow through a watershed at other times. CBCL's recommendation to build dikes along Rennie's River to avoid flooding of the Fieldian Grounds and backyards along Empire Avenue was particularly shocking, given that it would require cutting down trees, thereby increasing runoff in the lower reaches of the river near Dominion, and would protect very few buildings. The problems with the city's flood management philosophy have been discussed before, but I haven't heard of any potential changes, and that suggests that the restoration of culverted streams in the city remains unlikely.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #807  
Old Posted Dec 7, 2014, 8:56 PM
Arrakis Arrakis is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: St. John's, Newfoundland
Posts: 1,002
Was driving by the former Tom Woodford building in front of Avalon Mall yesterday and noticed that there was some activity going on inside. Seem like demolition but didn't get a closer look as I was in traffic. They do have a porta-pottie set up outside though so I would imagine the existing bathrooms inside are not functioning now.

Have heard the rumour that Avalon Mall owns this building now and the plan is to tear it down and change the entrance which is currently opposite the Salvation Army Thrift Store and move it east to line up with Polina Road. That will probably make more sense.

Can anyone confirm this?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #808  
Old Posted Dec 8, 2014, 2:04 PM
Horsell's Avatar
Horsell Horsell is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 536
I think it was Councillor Hickman who made a comment a number of months ago about the realignment of that intersection but there were no specifics. It is about 20 years overdue.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #809  
Old Posted Dec 8, 2014, 4:44 PM
Arrakis Arrakis is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: St. John's, Newfoundland
Posts: 1,002
I wonder why they didnt put any basement windows in these since the foundation is such a height above street level. Kinda pointless. They could have had the foundations dug a few more feet and there would be no need for stairs out front then.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SignalHillHiker View Post
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #810  
Old Posted Dec 18, 2014, 10:08 PM
delesseps delesseps is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 94
Thumbs down Glencrest

From the city:

Quote:
The St. John’s Municipal Council is considering an application from KMK Capital Inc. to rezone land at 40 Reservoir Road from the Comprehensive Development Area – Southlands (CDA Southlands) Zone to the Commercial Regional (CR) Zone.
The memorandum from the Department of Planning claims this is "part of an overall concept plan for big box commercial development within the Glencrest development." Mixed use it is not.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #811  
Old Posted Jan 6, 2015, 8:40 PM
delesseps delesseps is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 94
Shriners Road

The drawing on page 77 of the council agenda for January 5, 2015 shows a major change from the existing road right-of-way and property boundaries shown in the city's Mapcentre. Current plans call for Shriners Road to become a crescent with no access to Rotary Drive, and for a new cul-de-sac with larger building lots than is typical in the neighbourhood off of the east end of Shriners Road between Rotary Drive and New Pennywell Road. The intersection of Rotary Drive and Lions Road already makes me nervous, and the apparent lack of any near-term plans for a second north-south road (or walking path) in the neighbourhood is annoying.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #812  
Old Posted Jan 27, 2015, 1:29 PM
Horsell's Avatar
Horsell Horsell is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 536
The people have spoken…and they have been ignored. What an inconvenience it is for our City fathers to have to waste time on public hearing and commissioner’s reports, let’s just get on with the business of the City.

Some might cry NIMBY but to me it is more than that, it is one more example of poor planning. I’m not opposed to medium density residential development, what I am opposed to is making up the rules as you go along.

Kenmount Terrance and the surrounding area has been in the works for ten years or more, where is the “master plan” that outlines where apartments and row houses and retail/commercial areas and schools and churches are planned to go?

Compare this to how Churchill Park was planned 70 YEARS AGO and I would have to give our modern day planners a failing grade. Look how Churchill Square with its commercial and open space is bordered by multi family residential providing a buffer with the single family homes on cul de sacs and crescents. Schools and Churches integrated into the neighborhood. Kenmount Terrace could have been all of this, perhaps even better but it certainly doesn’t seem to be going that way. (Disclaimer: I do NOT live in Kenmount Terrace)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #813  
Old Posted Mar 24, 2015, 12:44 PM
BigRedSpecial BigRedSpecial is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 142
From VOCM:

Quote:

Residents of a neighbourhood off Brookfield Road have successfully halted the development of three new buildings that were proposed to have held about 200 apartments.



About 40 area-residents applauded as the motion to change the district from a low density area, to a medium density one was rejected, meaning all developments in the area must be limited to three storeys.

In December, about 200 people gathered at a public meeting to voice their concerns about the proposed complex, citing flooding, parking, traffic, and neighbourhood character as deterrents. Ward 5 Councillor Wally Collins represents the ward; he commended residents for standing their ground.


Collins says the proposed development was "not the right fit."
http://www.vocm.com/newsarticle.asp?...atest=1http://


"...Neighbourhood character as deterrents" Seriously? the remnants of Sprung Greenhouse had more character than your cookie cutter subdivision.

Is it perhaps time to explore taxing residences based on the actual cost to service? If people want to live in their little suburban enclaves that's fine, but the rest of the city shouldn't have to subsidize it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #814  
Old Posted Mar 25, 2015, 2:07 PM
goodgrowth goodgrowth is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 209
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigRedSpecial View Post
From VOCM:



http://www.vocm.com/newsarticle.asp?...atest=1http://


"...Neighbourhood character as deterrents" Seriously? the remnants of Sprung Greenhouse had more character than your cookie cutter subdivision.

Is it perhaps time to explore taxing residences based on the actual cost to service? If people want to live in their little suburban enclaves that's fine, but the rest of the city shouldn't have to subsidize it.
I think "cost to service" already happens in a more direct way with traffic and overall driving distance. There is no public transportation available past Mount Pearl and the traffic is terrible the farther you get out from St John's. That is a cost.

I think that there will be a tipping point where higher density areas/buildings are increasingly put up and will become acceptable by most people. It will probably take the younger generation alter the market to change from everybody wanting a suburban detached house to only 50% wanting a suburban detached house. It will have to happen for simply for cost of living reasons IMO. If the price of oil stays low I simply do not see this suburban boom sustaining itself.

I would just like to see one good project where a 10-12 story apartment/condo building is approved and put up. Even better if it's two right next to each other.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #815  
Old Posted Apr 6, 2015, 5:22 PM
Horsell's Avatar
Horsell Horsell is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 536
I drove by the Brine Street condos today and I was surprised to see the material they are using as siding, it appears to be very similar to what is on the Convention Center. Obviously they know their materials better than I do and I’m sure they are looking towards low maintenance however it still seems a little disappointing to see it on that building in that neighbourhood. I would have preferred something more stone/concrete like.

It is a shame that it is taking so long to build that place but then again I suspect that very few, if any, have been pre-sold and it may be economics that are dictating the schedule
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #816  
Old Posted Apr 6, 2015, 5:30 PM
PoscStudent's Avatar
PoscStudent PoscStudent is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: St. John's
Posts: 3,619
Quote:
Originally Posted by Horsell View Post
I drove by the Brine Street condos today and I was surprised to see the material they are using as siding, it appears to be very similar to what is on the Convention Center. Obviously they know their materials better than I do and I’m sure they are looking towards low maintenance however it still seems a little disappointing to see it on that building in that neighbourhood. I would have preferred something more stone/concrete like.

It is a shame that it is taking so long to build that place but then again I suspect that very few, if any, have been pre-sold and it may be economics that are dictating the schedule
Think again. 6 of the 9 units are sold.

http://www.hamiltonandbrine.com/#!pr...ing-offer/cihc
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #817  
Old Posted Apr 6, 2015, 7:17 PM
Horsell's Avatar
Horsell Horsell is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 536
That's great news...now I feel sorry for the buyers who are waiting for the completion of their units. Hopefully they can move in by the end of the year!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #818  
Old Posted Apr 6, 2015, 7:43 PM
PoscStudent's Avatar
PoscStudent PoscStudent is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: St. John's
Posts: 3,619
Quote:
Originally Posted by Horsell View Post
That's great news...now I feel sorry for the buyers who are waiting for the completion of their units. Hopefully they can move in by the end of the year!
It has taken a while. Not always as easy to renovate an existing - old - structure as it is build new.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #819  
Old Posted Apr 6, 2015, 10:54 PM
goodgrowth goodgrowth is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 209
Holy shit those garden walk outs on top are amazing...those last 3 units left won't last long.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #820  
Old Posted Apr 10, 2015, 11:22 AM
J_Murphy's Avatar
J_Murphy J_Murphy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: St. John's, NL
Posts: 1,141
110 more semi-attached houses for Kenmount Terrace....

http://www.stjohns.ca/sites/default/...unt%20Road.pdf

I'm going to say that street names are becoming too long.

Just one for example: "Leonard J Cowley Street Extension".

Really? Can't it just be 'Cowley Street'?
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Atlantic Provinces > St. John's
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 5:12 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.