HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

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

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #61  
Old Posted Feb 27, 2013, 5:16 PM
statbass statbass is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: St. John's
Posts: 1,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by niccanning View Post
What happened to the little buildings on the south side that were included in the original proposal? Seems like they have been replaced with a parting lot
It may be used in future development???
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #62  
Old Posted Feb 27, 2013, 7:59 PM
niccanning's Avatar
niccanning niccanning is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: New England
Posts: 237
Quote:
Originally Posted by Architype View Post
I think the surface parking must be for staff, services, and visitors. They could stilll put townhouses there in the future I guess, and add some underground parking. Part of the reason for their elimination was to make the project more economical.
I would assume the reason for creating two taller building, rather than three shorter, would be for the same reason. I guess it makes sense. I just hate waiting for parking lots to be transformed
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #63  
Old Posted Feb 27, 2013, 8:02 PM
jeddy1989's Avatar
jeddy1989 jeddy1989 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: St. John's, NL
Posts: 2,651
Quote:
Originally Posted by niccanning View Post
I would assume the reason for creating two taller building, rather than three shorter, would be for the same reason. I guess it makes sense. I just hate waiting for parking lots to be transformed
I'm more OK with this parking lot than any others in the city because it is not visible from basically anywhere but right next to it. to be honest we will probably be seeing these buildings from either torbay road or some other road that is not close enough to notice the parking lot.. all the same I understand why people do not like parking lots
__________________
-Where Once They Stood-
-We Stand-
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #64  
Old Posted Feb 28, 2013, 3:11 PM
rthomasd rthomasd is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 247
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeddy1989 View Post
I agree... the 155 room hilton garden Inn that's 12 stories in a field next to the delta has gotten about 2000000000000000 times the attention lol and this is a proposal for 2 16 story condos (first of it's kind here) and ZERO attention (probably a good thing all the same lol) I remember when the other building started .. it was within regulations so there was barely a peep and Shannie mentioned how she couldn't believe that such a large building whisked through without much input.

Oh well lol .. great thing about this one is that it's neighbors are the rest of Tiffany Estates lol

Chances are that we wont see much on it.

Also hopefully this is the beginning of more exciting things coming soon such as the hotel on the Atlantic place Garage.
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 "
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #65  
Old Posted Feb 28, 2013, 4:03 PM
JHikka's Avatar
JHikka JHikka is offline
Haru Urara
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Posts: 3,878
No separate thread for the Tiffany project yet? Come on, guys!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #66  
Old Posted Feb 28, 2013, 8:04 PM
Townie709's Avatar
Townie709 Townie709 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: St. John's, Newfoundland
Posts: 1,772
Quote:
Originally Posted by JHikka View Post
No separate thread for the Tiffany project yet? Come on, guys!
I guess we could make one, but it seems a bit unnecessary for the time being. There's not much in the media so probably not alot to talk about with it. I'm sure complaining residents will make the headlines soon enough.. Someone can go ahead and make one if they want, even if it might not get much action over the next few weeks
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #67  
Old Posted Feb 28, 2013, 8:09 PM
jeddy1989's Avatar
jeddy1989 jeddy1989 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: St. John's, NL
Posts: 2,651
[St. John's] Tiffany Condos | 2x58m | 2x16 Floors | Proposed

Here's the new thread as requested
__________________
-Where Once They Stood-
-We Stand-
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #68  
Old Posted Feb 28, 2013, 9:19 PM
AllBlack AllBlack is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: St. John's, Newfoundland
Posts: 265
I think there's an access issue here, but not the capacity of Tiffany Lane as raised by Ms Winters.

Access to that area is currently via either Tiffany Lane or Torbay Rd via the MQP school/church parking lot. As the area continues to develop and grow, I'd like to see primary access limited to Tiffany Lane and an alternate route developed that wasn't a school parking lot. There's nothing in the proposal that I can see to address that.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #69  
Old Posted Mar 1, 2013, 4:30 AM
Architype's Avatar
Architype Architype is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Pacific Canada
Posts: 6,506
The project (stage 2) is referred to in the LUAR as the "Tiffany Village Condos at Tiffany Estates", but is also referred to as just "Condos at Tiffany Estates". I have seen reference to some other buildings or developments in that area which also use "Tiffany" in the name; this could eventually get confusing, so I hope they can come up with some more distinctive names for the individual buildings.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #70  
Old Posted Mar 1, 2013, 10:36 AM
mrjanejacobs's Avatar
mrjanejacobs mrjanejacobs is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Toronto
Posts: 460
I propose the City rename the community "Tiffany" or "Tiffany Village". I would be down with saying, "hey, I live in Tiffany (Village)" - it sounds kind of ostentatious, but that can be ok sometimes. haha
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #71  
Old Posted Mar 1, 2013, 12:32 PM
SignalHillHiker's Avatar
SignalHillHiker SignalHillHiker is offline
I ♣ Baby Seals
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: See post below...
Posts: 23,907
I'm so excited for these buildings to start construction. I can't wait to photograph their progress. They're going to look SO good!
__________________
Note to self: "The plural of anecdote is not evidence."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #72  
Old Posted Mar 4, 2013, 12:22 PM
statbass statbass is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: St. John's
Posts: 1,323
I just pulled this from the city's website:

Quote:
At Council’s upcoming Regular Meeting to be held on Monday, March 11, 2013, Council is scheduled to make an initial decision on the proposed text amendments to allow the building height at the application property on Tiffany Lane to be increased to 16 storeys. Any persons wishing to comment on the proposed text amendments regarding the building height amendment are requested to send their comments in writing to the City Clerk’s Department by 12 p.m., (noon), Thursday, March 7, 2013 in any of the following ways: (by mail: City Clerk’s Department, City of St. John’s, P.O. Box 908, St. John’s, NL, A1C 5M2; by e-mail or by fax: (709) 576 8474). Any written representations received by the deadline noted will be included in the agenda for the regular meeting of Council on Monday, March 11, 2013, at which time Council is scheduled to make an initial decision on the text amendments. As information, written submissions received will become a matter of public record.
http://www.stjohns.ca/event/applicat...0-tiffany-lane

Let's make sure we all get our letters in on time!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #73  
Old Posted Mar 4, 2013, 3:42 PM
rthomasd rthomasd is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 247
Quote:
Originally Posted by statbass View Post
I just pulled this from the city's website:



http://www.stjohns.ca/event/applicat...0-tiffany-lane

Let's make sure we all get our letters in on time!
The email is cityclerk@stjohns.ca
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #74  
Old Posted Mar 4, 2013, 10:42 PM
rwspencer38 rwspencer38 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 106
just sent my email
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #75  
Old Posted Mar 4, 2013, 11:26 PM
Townie709's Avatar
Townie709 Townie709 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: St. John's, Newfoundland
Posts: 1,772
I'll fire one off now in a few minutes!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #76  
Old Posted Mar 4, 2013, 11:47 PM
rthomasd rthomasd is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 247
Quote:
Originally Posted by rwspencer38 View Post
just sent my email
ditto, copied the ward councillor.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #77  
Old Posted Mar 5, 2013, 3:25 AM
Architype's Avatar
Architype Architype is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Pacific Canada
Posts: 6,506
One thing of note is that they stated the shadowing effects would have less impact on the neighbouring properties with the new proposal, because of it being fewer buildings.
Also, costs, infrastructure, traffic, etc. would be more efficient with the new proposal.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #78  
Old Posted Mar 5, 2013, 1:21 PM
PoscStudent's Avatar
PoscStudent PoscStudent is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: St. John's
Posts: 3,614
I read this horrible letter to the editor today! Density, what was this guy smoking?

Quote:
Time to look ahead, not back

I’m writing to express my support for the proposed 16-floor Tiffany condominium 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 a 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 positive development such as this one because of sight lines or 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.

I want more walkable, well-planned neighbourhoods like Churchill Square and Pleasantville, and fewer car-dependent neighbourhoods completely devoid of any visible life like Paradise.

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.

Ryan Crocker
St. John’s
http://www.thetelegram.com/Opinion/L...%2C-not-back/1
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #79  
Old Posted Mar 5, 2013, 1:26 PM
SignalHillHiker's Avatar
SignalHillHiker SignalHillHiker is offline
I ♣ Baby Seals
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: See post below...
Posts: 23,907
Aww, yay! Now, I just hope no one comes with torches and pitchforks...
__________________
Note to self: "The plural of anecdote is not evidence."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #80  
Old Posted Mar 5, 2013, 1:29 PM
AllBlack AllBlack is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: St. John's, Newfoundland
Posts: 265
Who IS this guy???

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 11:02 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.