Development Concepts and Ideas

[Architype]

Originally Posted by john98642

Yes Halifax is the same way. But when was the last time they let up on the law? Only place for them to go is to be more strict haha. Just use a coffee mug!

I think most cities, including Vancouver are just as bad; in Vancouver you can smoke pot, but not drink or smoke cigarettes in a park.

[BigRedSpecial]

MUN was planning to start a Cold water aquarium out by Marine Lab; they even had a sign posted up at the site. It was all called off though, unfortunately.

[cdotr]

Originally Posted by BigRedSpecial

MUN was planning to start a Cold water aquarium out by Marine Lab; they even had a sign posted up at the site. It was all called off though, unfortunately.

As with many projects funding has been the roadblock for the Cold Water Aquarium.

[Architype]

Here is something I found, that might be of interest to anyone interested in urban planning, architecture, urban ideas, and the history and evolution of those. It's an academic type paper that questions a lot of conventional ideas and planning mistakes, so takes a bit of time to read, but is quite educational; "The Rise of Modernism and the Decline of Place" (A case study):
http://newcity.ca/Pages/surreycentre.pdf

[jeddy1989]

Council should add a nice modern pedestrian plaza/space to the west end DT, they obviously need to spruce it all up over on that side anywat, maybe they can convert one of the small parking lots or one of the streets to pedestrian only and do it up as a nice space for people to be in

[PoscStudent]

Attention needs to be paid to the west end.

[jeddy1989]

So I was playing around with photoshop and I added a few more highrises tot he west end DT it's not the greatest photoshop job and not the most accurate placing but it's a concept for our West End DT

[Townie709]

Originally Posted by jeddy1989

So I was playing around with photoshop and I added a few more highrises tot he west end DT it's not the greatest photoshop job and not the most accurate placing but it's a concept for our West End DT

Looks awesome! This is something I hope happens in my lifetime.. It's necessary!

[jeddy1989]

Originally Posted by Townie709

Looks awesome! This is something I hope happens in my lifetime.. It's necessary!

really it's only 5 additional projects .. definitely attainable and more in the foreseeable future .. we just need the right zoning

[SignalHillHiker]

Love it. :-) We have such a spectacular setting for a city.

[Architype]

Originally Posted by jeddy1989

So I was playing around with photoshop and I added a few more highrises tot he west end DT it's not the greatest photoshop job and not the most accurate placing but it's a concept for our West End DT

Nice job, none of it looks out of place either, except there would probably be a bit more greenery.

[SignalHillHiker]

A proposal from Quebec City that makes me green with envy:

Originally Posted by davidivivid

Here is the proposal for the $850M expansion of the Hotel Dieu de Québec, founded in 1637. I don't really know the status of this project but I do hope it will be a go soon. This hospital is situated inside the historic walls and was designated a National Historic Site of Canada in 1936, reason why its expansion is such a touchy subject. The current government is wondering if expanding this hospital is the right thing to do and wether the Enfant-Jésus hospital in nearby Limoilou should be the right location for the expansion.

Here is the hospital as it stands now, with its ugly tower constructed in the 50's. This tower will be updated to modern standards. A new building will be constructed next to it and everything will be covered in a beautiful grey stone, the same one used in the construction of the Parliement.



http://www.lapresse.ca/le-soleil/act...5-medecins.php

























https://www.facebook.com/pages/Sauvo...=photos_stream

Originally Posted by davidivivid

Proposal for another building next to the hospital:


http://www.lapresse.ca/le-soleil/act...7_section_POS1

[jeddy1989]

^^ I think that's UGLY as F%&#! TBH

[Architype]

^ Yes that's a weird looking conglomeration of a design. I didn't know what exactly to make of it until I realized it is partly a makeover of an old 60s structure with some additions. It's also a hospital, which can make for some pretty unusual looking configurations. It seems they will be using some real stone, and presumably high quality material though which should help it avoid looking cheap and crappy in reality.

[A325]

New underwater link in Turkey opens today:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/29/busine...html?hpt=hp_t2

[cam477]

Not sure if anyone here is familiar with Brent Toderian? He is the former chief planner of Vancouver. If you’re interested in smart development, urban planning and dense livable communities, he has some great lectures on youtube. Here’s a shorter one that sums up a lot of the great work he has done in Vancouver.

I’ve been to Vancouver a few times and I find it amazing how livable the downtown is (in fact, all of Vancouver proper). It’s dense, but it’s very livable and it doesn’t’ feel like most big cities.

Anyways, I figured I’d share this here in case it sparks discussion on any of the topics in his talk. Particularly, he discusses public space and how Vancouver used regulations to make developers pay for most of the developed, public space in the city. I might be overly optimistic, but I think in a booming city like ours there are going to be more and more people wanting to live downtown and in the city center. If this is true, there will be huge pressure on developers to meet that demand. That demand will work in our favour as it could give the city leverage to ask more of developers. If developer A is not willing to incorporate great public space than the development will not be approved and hopefully Developer B or C will come in with a proposal that meets the standards we set. Again, perhaps I’m too optimistic. What do you guys think? If we set our standards too high, I guess the risk is that lots could sit undeveloped for decades?

Another area in this talk I find interesting is the discussion around density and the fact that a lot of people assume it means skyscrapers. There are many ways to increase density and towers are only one of them. I think Vancouver has done a great job of using towers, but building them into great neighborhoods that don’t’ suffer at street level (with the exception of Coal Harbour). I think this is important for us as we don’t really have residential towers yet. So as we begin to build our first residential highrises at Tiffany we should be asking what kind of street level interaction and interaction with their surroundings they are going to have. For future residential highrises, what is it that we will expect from developers?

A final thought, is that Vancouver has a terrible problem with affordability. Are the high standards imposed by the city partly to blame? Maybe, but they are also consistently ranked among the most livable cities on earth so how important is it that most citizens in a city be able to afford their own a home?

Anyways, here’s the video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRk93Wgdv1g

[overboard]

I don't think you're being overly optimistic, I've thought similar things before (but I guess that means I'm optimistic too). Developers aren't going to improve our city through sheer goodwill; they're only looking out for number one after all. That's why it's so important that the city adopt a plan with some teeth. We need to steer development for the good of the city in the long term. Whether that means a certain allocation of public space, or certain design guidelines, or a certain process for vetting each project, or environmental considerations, is up for discussion. There's interest in building in St. John's and that interest is growing. I'm hoping we can move beyond the "bare minimum" proposals we've been seeing for a long time now.

I was fortunate enough to see Brent Toderian, as well as top planners from Toronto and Montreal, at a recent conference on Canadian urbanism in Halifax where he gave a similar talk. One of the things that stuck with me most was his point about prioritizing transportation (around 3:30 in that video). All modes of transportation are not created equal, and that's yet another issue the city has to take a stance on sooner rather than later. It's unfortunate that Newfoundland is so invested in the single occupancy vehicle but it's not too late to change our priorities.

Anyway thanks for the link, there are a few other talks in the recommendations that look good as well!

Edit: I wanted to add that there are multiple factors contributing to Vancouver's price bubble, and I highly doubt their standards are a major one. CBC's Doc Zone recently did a show about condo development and speculation, one such factor, which folks here might also be interested in: http://www.cbc.ca/player/Shows/Shows...ID/2419796099/

[NewfBC]

Most of what was done in Vancouver was initiated by Larry Beasley. Brent Toderian was hired after Larry retired. Brent came from Calgary - look at that mess. Brent was shortly fired by the current council after his hire.

[Architype]

Originally Posted by NewfBC

Most of what was done in Vancouver was initiated by Larry Beasley. Brent Toderian was hired after Larry retired. Brent came from Calgary - look at that mess. Brent was shortly fired by the current council after his hire.

There is always a lot of politics involved as there is anywhere else. His firing was probably largely a political decision. Anyway, here's an article about it:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...article554571/

[overboard]

If you're going to tell us we shouldn't listen to what he has to say, when he was dismissed without cause and remains an international urban planning consultant, or that we're wrong in what we're saying, then you're going to have to give us more than that.