HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

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

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #81  
Old Posted Oct 14, 2013, 3:45 PM
Townie709's Avatar
Townie709 Townie709 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: St. John's, Newfoundland
Posts: 1,772
This was mentioned in the official project thread but I thought I'd repost it here..

Public Meeting Oct 29th

It's not lost after all! Anyone planning to go to this meeting? I hope they have some better renders at this meeting too
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #82  
Old Posted Oct 20, 2013, 7:42 PM
ConundrumNL ConundrumNL is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: St. John's
Posts: 153
I want to seem some higher quality drawings, but I like the idea of this development. It's trying to improve a structure that's a real moose and a blight on the city skyline.

When I look at the renders though, I keep seeing large banner Ads attached to the side of the parking garage.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #83  
Old Posted Oct 22, 2013, 8:37 PM
cam477 cam477 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: St. John's, NL
Posts: 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Horsell View Post
The AP parking garage proposal is a complicated one, oh, not to mention an ugly one. But I digress.

The garage was sold a few years ago and there was some thought that the new buyers wanted to tear it down and build something more valuable on the site. There was talk of court cases and the city’s response to that has been to attempt to rezone the property for parking ONLY, due to its “historic” use as a parking site. (that is one of the items on the public meeting agenda).

My guess is that because the owners can’t tear it down they are trying to add value to their property by adding the hotel component. (Note that it is referred to as Hotel/Residential).

I'm no structural engineer but one only has to drive through that place to see more rust than is on the Kyle. My only hope is that some day there isn't an Elliott Lake Mall fiasco…God forbid.

I hope this proposal does NOT get approved (sorry folks) in its present form and that over time something better can be envisioned for that site.

The crazy parking regulations are what is killing any imaginative use for that site.
I completely agree!

IMO, everything that makes the AP Garage the worst planning mistake in our city’s history will still be present in the new proposal – We will still have a gigantic, ugly, parking garage in the dead center of our waterfront. The new proposal is only like putting a pretty hat on an ugly broad… it doesn’t’ change much. Sure it’s an improvement… but that’s a relative term.

Anyways, I’m usually gung-ho for developments but I think this one is a mistake. We will be taking the ugliest building in the city and extending its life by a few decades. I’d honestly rather wait for it to continue to rot in the hopes that it is one day torn down.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #84  
Old Posted Oct 30, 2013, 4:03 PM
Horsell's Avatar
Horsell Horsell is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 523
RE: Public meeting Oct 29th

I am surprised there was no objection to this proposal; I can’t believe that half the population south of LeMarchant Rd wasn’t there.

Perhaps apathy has set in or perhaps it is “Public Meeting Fatigue”. Those concerned about the downtown seem to have been beaten down by recent meetings on the Marriott and Lighthouse projects and have given up…hung up their rubber boots so to speak. What is the point in showing up and voicing objection when Council is just going to ignore the concerns anyway?

I think this is a very slippery slope if these amendments are allowed to pass. Once this goes through there will be no reason why Fortis can’t come back with a revised proposal with an even higher structure on the harbour side, (other than perhaps that they have “moved on” with their new building) and Southwest Properties will be back with their original 11 story hotel.

Once this amendment is approved the new de-facto height restriction along our waterfront will be a minimum of 11 stories, no question about it. The Great Wall of Water St
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #85  
Old Posted Nov 11, 2013, 1:41 PM
J_Murphy's Avatar
J_Murphy J_Murphy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: St. John's, NL
Posts: 1,097
Quote:
St. John's City Council may decide this week whether to move ahead with the development of three additional storeys atop the Atlantic Place parking garage.

Council held a public meeting October 29th to discuss an amendment to regulations that would allow the construction and though only a small number of people attended, they were generally supportive of the proposal.

The proposal is on the agenda at tomorrow's meeting. The Department of Planning and Development is recommending that Council give the green light.


http://www.vocm.com/newsarticle.asp?...40573&latest=1
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #86  
Old Posted Nov 11, 2013, 6:25 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 J_Murphy View Post
I bet it gets approved and 5 years from now we wonder what ever happened to this proposal. This one seems to me like a vanisher
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #87  
Old Posted Nov 11, 2013, 9:07 PM
Marty_Mcfly's Avatar
Marty_Mcfly Marty_Mcfly is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: St. John's, NL
Posts: 3,016
Quote:
Originally Posted by Townie709 View Post
I bet it gets approved and 5 years from now we wonder what ever happened to this proposal. This one seems to me like a vanisher
I would say the opposite actually. This seems like a low-risk high-reward development. If it gets approved as is then I can't seem why it wouldn't get off the ground in the spring. Compare that to 123 Water Street.....the large number of compromises required to get the proposal approved may have cut into profit margins making the development unfeasible.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #88  
Old Posted Nov 12, 2013, 2:15 AM
ed0797's Avatar
ed0797 ed0797 is offline
Urban Design Aficionado
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: St. John's, NL
Posts: 82
I'm not getting my hopes up, but I also think this one isn't going anywhere. From what I've seen it's rare to see a developer hold a public meeting after the building gets its "first" approval. I was supposed when the developer actually rescheduled the meeting! But, the history of development downtown isn't good. I guess we won't know until construction starts
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #89  
Old Posted Nov 12, 2013, 2:24 AM
Townie709's Avatar
Townie709 Townie709 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: St. John's, Newfoundland
Posts: 1,772
The reason I say it's gonna disappear is because the developer is going to have to spend millions upon millions of dollars on that old pile of crap and for what? 3 measley floors of usable space. It would be great for the public if it happened, but I think once the developers get their approval and start seriously looking at the costs, this one is gonna disappear never to be heard from again.

Prove me wrong, developers!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #90  
Old Posted Nov 12, 2013, 4:37 AM
Chew's Avatar
Chew Chew is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: St. John's, NL
Posts: 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by Townie709 View Post
The reason I say it's gonna disappear is because the developer is going to have to spend millions upon millions of dollars on that old pile of crap and for what? 3 measley floors of usable space. It would be great for the public if it happened, but I think once the developers get their approval and start seriously looking at the costs, this one is gonna disappear never to be heard from again.

Prove me wrong, developers!
I'm sure there was an at least basic economic feasibility study done along with the technical feasibility and preliminary design.

Sure, usually costs creep up once a project gets moving, but I'm sure they have a decent idea of what they're getting themselves into.

I think putting together the financing is where things often fall apart in construction projects and other areas in business, as our friends at Blackberry know all too well (after that buyout deal evaporated).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #91  
Old Posted Nov 12, 2013, 1:54 PM
jjavman jjavman is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 79
CBC article re: Atlantic Place Hotel on council agenda tonight.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfou...ncil-1.2423304
Edit/Delete Message
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #92  
Old Posted Nov 12, 2013, 3:44 PM
Arrakis Arrakis is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: St. John's, Newfoundland
Posts: 915
The Happy City Facebook page has a post concerning this and is already stirring things up.

I do hope this gets approved. Anything to improved that horrible looking structure is worth it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jjavman View Post
CBC article re: Atlantic Place Hotel on council agenda tonight.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfou...ncil-1.2423304
Edit/Delete Message
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #93  
Old Posted Nov 12, 2013, 4:16 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 Arrakis View Post
The Happy City Facebook page has a post concerning this and is already stirring things up.

I do hope this gets approved. Anything to improved that horrible looking structure is worth it.

Can someone please shut Wallace Ryan the F**K up!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #94  
Old Posted Nov 12, 2013, 5:44 PM
J_Murphy's Avatar
J_Murphy J_Murphy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: St. John's, NL
Posts: 1,097
Quote:
Originally Posted by displacednewfie View Post
Can someone please shut Wallace Ryan the F**K up!
hahaha...I agree.

The top rated comment on CBC is the dude that calls them "overpriced soulless dwellings."

I swear someday I will stop reading CBC commentary.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #95  
Old Posted Nov 12, 2013, 6:31 PM
Horsell's Avatar
Horsell Horsell is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 523
I can’t say that I share most posters enthusiasm about this proposal, I think this is very bad for this property.

At the very least this is a band-aid solution by the City to try and please a developer who “may” have bought into something that they can’t easily get out of because the City seems dead set on zoning this property based on its “historic use as a parking garage”.

There was a similar situation in Halifax a few years back when a developer wanted to tear down (before it fell down) rusting parking garage and redevelop the site. I’m not sure what the final outcome was.

If this planning amendment is allowed to pass it just throws every planning document, now and in the future out the window. What’s to stop them next week from designating any property based on its “historic use” and thus limit its redevelopment.

I am not opposed to a hotel or condo or merry-go-round on that site, just NOT on top of the piece of garbage that is already there.

“Mr. O’Keefe, tear down this wall (garage)”.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #96  
Old Posted Nov 12, 2013, 6:45 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 Horsell View Post
I can’t say that I share most posters enthusiasm about this proposal, I think this is very bad for this property.

At the very least this is a band-aid solution by the City to try and please a developer who “may” have bought into something that they can’t easily get out of because the City seems dead set on zoning this property based on its “historic use as a parking garage”.

There was a similar situation in Halifax a few years back when a developer wanted to tear down (before it fell down) rusting parking garage and redevelop the site. I’m not sure what the final outcome was.

If this planning amendment is allowed to pass it just throws every planning document, now and in the future out the window. What’s to stop them next week from designating any property based on its “historic use” and thus limit its redevelopment.

I am not opposed to a hotel or condo or merry-go-round on that site, just NOT on top of the piece of garbage that is already there.

“Mr. O’Keefe, tear down this wall (garage)”.

Never looked at it that way, but you do actually have a legitimate concern. Though I have to say I am surprised that previous councils never already attempted to do that with various properties in the DT area.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #97  
Old Posted Nov 12, 2013, 8:35 PM
Horsell's Avatar
Horsell Horsell is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 523
TexPark Halifax !

Here are a couple of links to the history of TexPark. I'm not saying we should repeat the mistakes that have taken place with it but perhaps it would be a good case study for the "Mad Men" down in the Bunker.

http://www.halifaxhistory.ca/Texpark.htm

http://www.thecoast.ca/RealityBites/...el-parking-lot
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #98  
Old Posted Nov 12, 2013, 8:45 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 Horsell View Post
TexPark Halifax !

Here are a couple of links to the history of TexPark. I'm not saying we should repeat the mistakes that have taken place with it but perhaps it would be a good case study for the "Mad Men" down in the Bunker.

http://www.halifaxhistory.ca/Texpark.htm

http://www.thecoast.ca/RealityBites/...el-parking-lot

Not meaning to sound cynical but the gravel parking lot is exactly what Halifax City Council and the Heritage wing nuts deserve!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #99  
Old Posted Nov 12, 2013, 10:28 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 displacednewfie View Post
Not meaning to sound cynical but the gravel parking lot is exactly what Halifax City Council and the Heritage wing nuts deserve!
Well that does sound both ignorant and cynical..

*************************

Anyone hear whether or not this was approved? I'm pretty sure we all know the answer anyway haha
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #100  
Old Posted Nov 12, 2013, 10:36 PM
Townie709's Avatar
Townie709 Townie709 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: St. John's, Newfoundland
Posts: 1,772
Just saw on the CBC liveblog that the AP hotel was unanimously approved by city council. Now it goes to the province for approval and then another public meeting.

Can anyone explain to me why the province has to grant approval for an extension of an existing property in downtown St. John's? Seems to me that those kind of decisions should be made by the city alone and not have to be processed by the province. Any development in the city should be the city's responsibility, not the province's. It only needlessly slows down the pace of development. This must be one area of which mayor O'Keefe was referring to when he said the city relations with the province are archaic and need to be updated to give the city greater authority over what goes on within its borders.
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 8:42 PM.

     

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