[St. John's] Metro West End Development - Page 34

SignalHillHiker · #**661** Posted **Jul 25, 2013, 9:41 PM**

True - BUT this is the development's industrial park, not commercial area. It's nicer than, for example, Donovans.

mrjanejacobs · #**662** Posted **Jul 25, 2013, 10:01 PM**

That's not a justification.

Industrial/business parks do not need to look like this. Why do we need to have industry in one "park"? Why can't we have industry in a mixed-use urban development?

Let's not rationalize (or justify) thoughtless planning and urban design because it's not as bad as x. This is also very, very bad. It promotes private car-ownership. It makes walking impossible (there aren't even sidewalks in the rendering, fyi). It segregates uses.

If this is a glimpse of what the City is getting themselves into, then this is about to be one of the most unsustainable investments for decades to come.

Architype · #**663** Posted **Jul 26, 2013, 12:54 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrjanejacobs

I didn't realize there was a website. I hope this sheds some light on Glencrest. As far as I'm concerned, it has shed a very negative light on the development.

The first phase of the plan for the industrial area is not progressive or innovative whatsoever. In fact, it looks even worse than Stavanger Drive.

http://glencrest.ca/the-plan/

I do see some green buffer space in there for what it's worth.

If you are saying industrial land use should be more integrated with residential, etc.; how would you be able to do that?

BTW, I'm assuming that rendering to be more industrial than commercial, as a commercial area with high traffic it would be pretty terrible.

cam477 · #**664** Posted **Jul 26, 2013, 1:45 AM**

I don’t see any way around industrial parks. You simply aren’t going to have warehouses, factories and facilities that could contain dangerous chemicals on residential or commercial streets. Furthermore, Industrial parks get a lot of transport truck traffic and therefore it’s best if they are near or on a highway and away from residential streets.

They are not nice and no one goes to them unless they need to. But they are a necessary evil. For example the industrial park in Saint-Laurent is hideous (like every other industrial park)… but it takes nothing away from Montreal.

So I don’t understand what alternative you are suggesting MrJane?

To me they exist on the outskirts of cities and they serve a very specific purpose. I don’t work in one and therefore I very rarely find myself in one.

jeddy1989 · #**665** Posted **Jul 30, 2013, 1:17 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by cam477

I don’t see any way around industrial parks. You simply aren’t going to have warehouses, factories and facilities that could contain dangerous chemicals on residential or commercial streets. Furthermore, Industrial parks get a lot of transport truck traffic and therefore it’s best if they are near or on a highway and away from residential streets.

They are not nice and no one goes to them unless they need to. But they are a necessary evil. For example the industrial park in Saint-Laurent is hideous (like every other industrial park)… but it takes nothing away from Montreal.

So I don’t understand what alternative you are suggesting MrJane?

To me they exist on the outskirts of cities and they serve a very specific purpose. I don’t work in one and therefore I very rarely find myself in one.

I have to agree ... the only pedestrian things in an industrial park would be for the workers .. who would want to go get a coffee next to a warehouse where there's transport trucks all over the place.. The best they can do for industrial parks is to add aesthetics .. I do not see ANY industrial parks around the world that are integrated in a walk able pedestrian friendly area with apartments above the warehouse lol you don't really want to have your house and local bakery along side an industrial building that most likely uses harmful chemicals or has dangerous equipment on site to manufacture products. Sure it could have sidewalks and connectivity but these fellas are right, it's made to produce and store things and have access to getting the products in and out as easily as possible.

commercial areas on the other hand can very easily be integrated in mixed use communities.

cam477 · #**666** Posted **Jul 30, 2013, 8:43 PM**

Oh yeah, if this was a commercial area I would hate it. I can’t stand ‘power centers’.

But I also can’t think of any examples where industrial sites work well with their communities and surroundings. For example, the city depot, Purity factory and other industrial buildings in the mundy pond area suck a lot of life from the neighborhood; just as the Country Ribbon facility does to the Quidi Vidi area; or the port does to the DT area.

I’m all for mixed use areas. But I think some things belong in industrial parks on the outskirts of towns.

ConundrumNL · #**667** Posted **Jul 30, 2013, 9:06 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrjanejacobs

I didn't realize there was a website. I hope this sheds some light on Glencrest. As far as I'm concerned, it has shed a very negative light on the development.

The first phase of the plan for the industrial area is not progressive or innovative whatsoever. In fact, it looks even worse than Stavanger Drive.

http://glencrest.ca/the-plan/

I'm concerned about the entrance from the TCH. No overpass means there will be more traffic on the Paddy's Pond overpass from people coming west turning around. I'm surprised at this, since I think most traffic would be coming from the east.

I can only assume this will connect up to Southlands Blvd from the start.

techie · #**668** Posted **Jul 30, 2013, 11:29 PM**

Traffic from the east would access the site from the Ruth ave, south lands blvd overpass.

tch1005 · #**669** Posted **Aug 3, 2013, 11:21 AM**

Anyone know what's going up behind the firehall, next to Don Cherry's, in Mount Pearl?

PoscStudent · #**670** Posted **Aug 6, 2013, 10:37 PM**

Quote:

Boss loss sparks Danny Williams to act

Danny Williams says he's altering his plans to develop 2,400 acres in the west end of St. John's after hearing the city missed an opportunity to bring in Bruce Springteen.

“To accommodate say 50,000 or 60,000 people its about 15 or 20 acres … this wouldn’t necessarily be something to compete with [ Grand Falls-Windsor’s] Salmonfest this would be competing with Halifax and even Montreal,” said Williams.

The former premier says he wants to build a concert venue in St. John’s that will allow this province to book mega-shows like Springteen or Fleetwood Mac

“We're going to put it into our plans immediately and see if we can’t locate an area of that property. You know, it’s a good place to do it, in the immediate future. We are really going to try to make it happen," said Williams.

His comments come after the Mayor of St. John's says the city lost an opportunity to have rock-legend Bruce Springsteen play here this summer because it doesn’t have a big enough venue.

According to Dennis O’Keefe the Boss was interested in playing St. John's but couldn’t because the city doesn’t have a site that can handle 25,000 people.

O'Keefe has asked city staff to find a location where it could happen.

"Moncton does it, Halifax does it. There's no reason why we shouldn't do it?” he said.

St. John’s concert promoter David Carver has brought in some big names - like Tom Petty - but he has yet to hook his dream artist.

“Well I guess it's no secret – Springtseen,” he said.

He agrees with O’Keefe, and Williams.

“The city needs a major outdoor concert venue,” said Carver.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfou...venue-805.html

rthomasd · #**671** Posted **Aug 6, 2013, 10:46 PM**

Fleetwood Mac? Don't need a 50,000 seat venue anymore for FM, saw them at the Metro Centre in Halifax and it's not that much larger than Mile One.

U2 - YES !

Architype · #**672** Posted **Aug 7, 2013, 12:12 AM**

That 15 or 20 acres would be bordering on some residential areas, it could be a problem for neighbours. 50,000 is a large crowd with lots of traffic and outdoor concert noise. Aside from those considerations it's a great idea, and that much land would be normally provide lots of park space.

Trevor3 · #**673** Posted **Aug 7, 2013, 12:19 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by rthomasd

Fleetwood Mac? Don't need a 50,000 seat venue anymore for FM, saw them at the Metro Centre in Halifax and it's not that much larger than Mile One.

U2 - YES !

I think it's kind of sad for a city of what amounts to about 200,000 people only has a stadium capable of holding about 6500-7000 for concerts. Corner Brook's Pepsi Centre can hold 4,000 for concerts and the entire west coast only has 90,000 people. St. John's should have had a 10K indoor stadium, but that's an entirely different discussion.

It would be great to get more big name acts coming to the province and it would really help the reputation of the island as a tourism destination. I guess the big thing to point out is that it wouldn't be a seated venue, probably something like an open-air amphitheatre with a bandstand/stage and field that slopes up away from the stage to give people in the back a view of the act would work best for concert purposes, but how it would be of use the rest of the time? No idea.

SignalHillHiker · #**674** Posted **Aug 7, 2013, 1:49 AM**

In the video interview with Danny at the CBC link, in which a female driver shouts "I LOVE YOU DANNY!" at him as she passes, he says it could be used as an all-season playground the rest of the year - a grassy meadow in summer, sliding hills in winter.

He's also interested in getting MUN to expand into Glencrest.

I LOVE this man. LOVE.

PoscStudent · #**675** Posted **Aug 7, 2013, 1:10 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Architype

That 15 or 20 acres would be bordering on some residential areas, it could be a problem for neighbours. 50,000 is a large crowd with lots of traffic and outdoor concert noise. Aside from those considerations it's a great idea, and that much land would be normally provide lots of park space.

People would know in advance that they were purchasing a property near it, and therefore should expect it do be used a few times a year.

Architype · #**676** Posted **Aug 7, 2013, 2:57 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by PoscStudent

People would know in advance that they were purchasing a property near it, and therefore should expect it do be used a few times a year.

That's the way it is supposed to be.

People in Mt. Pearl might complain though.
Anyway if it's in the right location I think it is a good idea, seeing there is a demand for it.
How many concerts per year would be expected?

PoscStudent · #**677** Posted **Aug 7, 2013, 4:39 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Architype

That's the way it is supposed to be.

People in Mt. Pearl might complain though.
Anyway if it's in the right location I think it is a good idea, seeing there is a demand for it.
How many concerts per year would be expected?

Why would Mount Pearl complain?

SignalHillHiker · #**678** Posted **Aug 7, 2013, 5:50 PM**

They don't get to complain unless they agree to amalgamate.

statbass · #**679** Posted **Aug 7, 2013, 6:04 PM**

I guess they can complain as much as they want. I'm not sure if it'll do them much good???

Trevor3 · #**680** Posted **Aug 8, 2013, 1:11 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SignalHillHiker

In the video interview with Danny at the CBC link, in which a female driver shouts "I LOVE YOU DANNY!" at him as she passes, he says it could be used as an all-season playground the rest of the year - a grassy meadow in summer, sliding hills in winter.

He's also interested in getting MUN to expand into Glencrest.

I LOVE this man. LOVE.

Well that answers my question.

And for what it's worth, I'd probably make a trip out for a performer like the Boss. U2? Definitely.