HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

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

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted Sep 26, 2014, 5:58 PM
Stryker Stryker is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 3,559
Styles St John's should embrace.

Anytime we talk about St john's and development there seems to be some imaginary war between people arguing for historical preservation and modern North American style construction.

So I ask why aren't we pushing our building codes to be something closer to this.


http://intelligenttravel.nationalgeo...-reykjavik.jpg
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted Sep 27, 2014, 8:24 PM
jeddy1989's Avatar
jeddy1989 jeddy1989 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: St. John's, NL
Posts: 2,647
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stryker View Post
Anytime we talk about St john's and development there seems to be some imaginary war between people arguing for historical preservation and modern North American style construction.

So I ask why aren't we pushing our building codes to be something closer to this.


http://intelligenttravel.nationalgeo...-reykjavik.jpg
but that's just Reykjavik's historic centre

We could be pushing to build based on principles that bring new developments closer to the density and style of our historic centre, if you're talking about in new developments.
__________________
-Where Once They Stood-
-We Stand-
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted Sep 27, 2014, 9:46 PM
Architype's Avatar
Architype Architype is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Pacific Canada
Posts: 6,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stryker View Post
Anytime we talk about St john's and development there seems to be some imaginary war between people arguing for historical preservation and modern North American style construction.

So I ask why aren't we pushing our building codes to be something closer to this.


http://intelligenttravel.nationalgeo...-reykjavik.jpg
Do you mean zoning regulations, rather than building codes? Zoning is incredibly important in determining what gets built. You would be surprised how much you cannot build unless it's the same thing as what is existing. You wouldn't be allowed to build a downtown type building, nicely scaled and pedestrian oriented up to the sidewalk, on Kenmount Road, for example. It would be required to have a large parking lot on a large piece of land and set back a certain distance, just like what's there now. The zoning needs to be changed in order to permit anything radically different, at least that's usually the case.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2014, 7:47 PM
Stryker Stryker is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 3,559
Quote:
Originally Posted by Architype View Post
Do you mean zoning regulations, rather than building codes? Zoning is incredibly important in determining what gets built. You would be surprised how much you cannot build unless it's the same thing as what is existing. You wouldn't be allowed to build a downtown type building, nicely scaled and pedestrian oriented up to the sidewalk, on Kenmount Road, for example. It would be required to have a large parking lot on a large piece of land and set back a certain distance, just like what's there now. The zoning needs to be changed in order to permit anything radically different, at least that's usually the case.
Yeah yeah whatever.

Point being kenmount terrace, and that ugly blue parking lot building down town, make me wanna gouge my eyes out.

How can you meander on about historic crap, and at the same time, let crap like that get built. There are very basic housing alternatives that could be used on the avalon, that are not.


This place has a fear of not being assbackwards, like somehow if we do something the logical way, and we'll turn into Calgary over night.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted Sep 30, 2014, 12:57 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
Stepping aside from the whole Heritage versus Modern BS, here is a better idea why not make developments functional. If I want to build say for example a condo/apartment tower, then provisions should be made that a grocery store or urban market must be built on the main floor(s). If the grocery store is not attainable then some sort of convenience store(mom/pop or chain) or even a drugstore should be included in the building.

In a city with such a small population base spread out over an obese amount of land there should be no zoning for Low Density, at a bare minimum the basic zoning should be Medium density/Mixed Use.

http://www.calgaryherald.com/busines...281/story.html

This something that the developers here in St. John's should be considering (minus the height obviously).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted Sep 30, 2014, 8:14 PM
Stryker Stryker is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 3,559
i don't think high rises will work the best to be honest.

People want the illusion at the very least of living in a village like area.


Medium density 3-4 stories is what we need. Some pseudo imitation of row houses.

Downtown Toronto has alot of these high denscity pseudo historical condo areas.

There are these condo's near little norway crescent downtown toronto that would work perfectly in St johns.

But again the issue is a lack of cooperation of the Suburbs with St johns.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted Sep 30, 2014, 9:02 PM
Architype's Avatar
Architype Architype is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Pacific Canada
Posts: 6,449
One of the problems of modern planning is the total separation of land uses. In order to have a village type of living again, we have to re-integrate land uses. People have a problem with that though, but actually it is a left over of the days of heavy industry when people didn't want to be living near smokestacks and have their house covered in soot. As soon as trains, streetcars, automobiles were invented people wanted to get outta there. So we invented suburbs, which are just a "pretend" way of simulating country estate living. It isn't city and it isn't country, its just - all the same everywhere. Now, as the lots sizes get smaller and smaller, you have the worst of all worlds right at home. All the inconvenience of living in the countryside without any of the benefits, and all the hassles of living in the city without any of the convenience.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted Sep 30, 2014, 9:09 PM
Stryker Stryker is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 3,559
Quote:
Originally Posted by Architype View Post
One of the problems of modern planning is the total separation of land uses. In order to have a village type of living again, we have to re-integrate land uses. People have a problem with that though, but actually it is a left over of the days of heavy industry when people didn't want to be living near smokestacks and have their house covered in soot. As soon as trains, streetcars, automobiles were invented people wanted to get outta there. So we invented suburbs, which are just a "pretend" way of simulating country estate living. It isn't city and it isn't country, its just - all the same everywhere. Now, as the lots sizes get smaller and smaller, you have the worst of all worlds right at home. All the inconvenience of living in the countryside without any of the benefits, and all the hassles of living in the city without any of the convenience.
I actually got a book about the early industrial era in canada. You do really appreciate why people wanted to get the Fluff out of factory areas.

Just the civic fire prone to the early cities alone were enough to want to force people to the burbs.

I have no denial that for a limited time, cars and suburbs were a great way of rapidly expanding the standards of living of its folk.

However with IT, stringent safety standards, and standarized predictable growth patterns of modern economies etc, its extremely outdated.

Worst still walkable areas have been ghettoized into slums.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted Sep 30, 2014, 11:59 PM
Architype's Avatar
Architype Architype is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Pacific Canada
Posts: 6,449
They can become ghettos, then become gentrified, which also leads to a less diversified population. Canadians (& Newfoundlanders too) are programmed to be very territorial and possessive of property. Having that little piece of grass (maybe 1200 sq ft) is ultimately important. This means people have less value or concept of what is called "the public realm", the common property of all its citizens. It is within the public realm that civilization makes its greatest progress.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted Oct 1, 2014, 11:51 AM
displacednewfie displacednewfie is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Edmonton,Alberta(work) St. John's, NL (where my heart is)
Posts: 68
I am a firm believer for a city to truly work there has to be a diverse assortment of housing options available on the market. Right now for example here in St. John's there are 2 types of living Heritage versus North American cookie cutter homes.

Now don't get me wrong there is absolutely nothing wrong with Heritage Homes for those that prefer them or likewise there is nothing wrong with the cookie cutter homes for those that like them as well.

But for those like myself and others here on this forum who would prefer condo living there are not a lot of options in the marketplace here today. Sure there are a few condo buildings here, but the location of those buildings are not really ideal. This goes back to what I was saying in my other post.....developments have to be functional. I'd be willing to bet my next pay cheque that there would not be such a ruckus over a development in the downtown area IF the developer had street level services such as a supermarket or drugstore. Then again I could also be dreaming.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted Oct 1, 2014, 6:51 PM
Stryker Stryker is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 3,559
Quote:
Originally Posted by displacednewfie View Post
I am a firm believer for a city to truly work there has to be a diverse assortment of housing options available on the market. Right now for example here in St. John's there are 2 types of living Heritage versus North American cookie cutter homes.

Now don't get me wrong there is absolutely nothing wrong with Heritage Homes for those that prefer them or likewise there is nothing wrong with the cookie cutter homes for those that like them as well.

But for those like myself and others here on this forum who would prefer condo living there are not a lot of options in the marketplace here today. Sure there are a few condo buildings here, but the location of those buildings are not really ideal. This goes back to what I was saying in my other post.....developments have to be functional. I'd be willing to bet my next pay cheque that there would not be such a ruckus over a development in the downtown area IF the developer had street level services such as a supermarket or drugstore. Then again I could also be dreaming.
Well the location issue is why I don't support condo's in st johns.

I prefer them myself, however there doesn't seem to be anywhere where it actually makes sense.

You need a backdrop of medium density to work.

as a condo in the burbs is dam stupid.



Anyways I actually do see a huge problem with low density housing.

It's more expensive to service, creates more traffic, wastes valuable land etc.

It quite literally the low hanging fruit of land usage.

Either blow 100 acres at half the cost, for the rest of time.

Or use 25 acres at twice the cost, and have something that will make returns to your city for generations.

I understand that suburbs were built during a post war boom, where people couldn't afford to wait for more solid growth, but this is the future and we shouldn't tolerate such crap.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted Oct 2, 2014, 10:43 AM
BigRedSpecial BigRedSpecial is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 142
Excellent points here being made by all. This issue I take with suburban living, is that it is a fantasy. What is being sold, doesn't actually exist.

I recently read a book I picked up used, Suburban Nation (amazing book that I would recommend to anyone - extremely insightful not just concerning the problems with modern "planning", but also outlines where we can go from here). The authors describe the initial flight from city centers to the outskirts as "exodus en mass" - everyone left the city to get away from everyone else, simultaneously. Resulting in the cluster fuck we have today.

Last edited by BigRedSpecial; Oct 9, 2014 at 6:18 PM. Reason: Book title was Suburban Nation, not Death of Suburbia
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted Oct 2, 2014, 11:36 AM
Stryker Stryker is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 3,559
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigRedSpecial View Post
Excellent points here being made by all. This issue I take with suburban living, is that it is a fantasy. What is being sold, doesn't actually exist.

I recently read a book I picked up used, Death of Suburbia (amazing book that I would recommend to anyone - extremely insightful not just concerning the problems with modern "planning", but also outlines where we can go from here). The authors describe the initial flight from city centers to the outskirts as "exodus en mass" - everyone left the city to get away from everyone else, simultaneously. Resulting in the cluster fuck we have today.
Well the hole is already being dug. We should of restricted sprawl 15 years ago. Now were stuck with this awful infrastructure.

Its fine to agree their is a problem but we need to start putting pressure on people.

And I'm not just talking about the government but the people themselves.

The weath of this city is going further out over the overpass, living in the city is becoming more and more a sign one isn't established on the avalon.

Last edited by Stryker; Oct 2, 2014 at 2:59 PM.
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 3:49 AM.

     

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