HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

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

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #121  
Old Posted Feb 26, 2014, 10:34 PM
jeddy1989's Avatar
jeddy1989 jeddy1989 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: St. John's, NL
Posts: 2,652
Quote:
Originally Posted by Horsell View Post
It looks as if the AP garage expansion has cleared another hurdle in the approval process. The commissioner's report from the latest Public Meeting was approved by Council this past Monday. I'm not sure but there may be one other step to go through.

I can't believe that there hasn't been more objection to this, have people just given up on trying to protect what's left of that part of Water St.?

One interesting objection was from the owner of the property on the east side of Baird's cove. It wasn't so much an objection as a question why this particular proponent would be allowed to increase the height in order to "generate additional income for the owner" and whether or not in the future he would be given the same consideration to do something with his property to generate more income.

I would have to agree with him on this one, as I sure the courts would as well if it was ever challenged. The precedent will now be set to allow any property on Water St. to increase in height and bulk so as to "increase income for the owner".
Water street wont be touched.

The site is on Harbour drive and has nothing to do with water street...
http://goo.gl/maps/VCjch

http://goo.gl/maps/ggzFr
__________________
-Where Once They Stood-
-We Stand-
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #122  
Old Posted Feb 27, 2014, 12:08 AM
mrjanejacobs's Avatar
mrjanejacobs mrjanejacobs is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Toronto
Posts: 460
Quote:
Originally Posted by Horsell View Post
It looks as if the AP garage expansion has cleared another hurdle in the approval process. The commissioner's report from the latest Public Meeting was approved by Council this past Monday. I'm not sure but there may be one other step to go through.

I can't believe that there hasn't been more objection to this, have people just given up on trying to protect what's left of that part of Water St.?

One interesting objection was from the owner of the property on the east side of Baird's cove. It wasn't so much an objection as a question why this particular proponent would be allowed to increase the height in order to "generate additional income for the owner" and whether or not in the future he would be given the same consideration to do something with his property to generate more income.

I would have to agree with him on this one, as I sure the courts would as well if it was ever challenged. The precedent will now be set to allow any property on Water St. to increase in height and bulk so as to "increase income for the owner".
The precedent has already been set, time and time and time again. This is always the argument that is rehashed with new developments.

Atlantic Place predates the Heritage By-Law (it was built in the early 70s). Atlantic Place already imposes itself onto its site, and the heritage district. Shouldn't remediating it be a positive thing?

It's always in the city's interest to facilitate net-profit for private industry. It's a pros-cons game, designed to optimize social benefit with a healthy compromise. But in the end, pro-development attitudes that don't stand in the way of the public interest are ultimately in the best interest of society.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #123  
Old Posted Feb 27, 2014, 12:34 PM
Horsell's Avatar
Horsell Horsell is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 528
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeddy1989 View Post
Water street wont be touched.
I know that the buildings fronting on Water St. won't be touched, they are owned by others, however having an 11 story structure behind them will have the same effect. I was simply referring to Water St. generally.

Seeing as how there is very little on Harbour Dr. that has any historical significance due to the fact that anything that was there was bulldozed in the 60's to make way for the road and docks themselves, why doesn't council zone a 100 foot strip as "commercial harbour view" due to it's historical use as "viewing the harbour". Set the height limit to 15 or 20 stories so as to maximize the number of occupants of the buildings that would have a "view".
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #124  
Old Posted Feb 27, 2014, 12:49 PM
Horsell's Avatar
Horsell Horsell is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 528
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrjanejacobs View Post
....It's always in the city's interest to facilitate net-profit for private industry. It's a pros-cons game, designed to optimize social benefit with a healthy compromise. But in the end, pro-development attitudes that don't stand in the way of the public interest are ultimately in the best interest of society.
I agree...to a point.

The problem in this case is that the city would not allow the owner to maximize their profits if it meant replacing the garage with something more profitable. Instead, the city is manipulating its own zoning to attempt to arrive at a compromise with the owner.

I personally think that this particular "pro-development" does stand in the way public interest because of the visual impact it will have on this structure.

Where the city needs to facilitate industry is in the west end of downtown. They need to designate a new CBD there and put the proper zoning in place to create the proper height and density.
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
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 2:11 PM.

     

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