[St. John's] The Official Project Thread

[PoscStudent]

I think that piece of land across from the delta where the 2 question marks are would be a great spot for a huge multi level parking garage with maybe just a couple of stories of office space, so the view isn't wasted, and a coffee shop. I think by doing this the office buildings on the adjacent land wouldn't need to supply as much parking spaces.

[Architype]

Originally Posted by jeddy1989

I also think that having above ground open parking lots in downtown is a waste of space and if all the buildings we closer and more clumped together then that would make a more walkable area... and alow for more developments to fit in that area... like the area next to the delta could fit 2 buildings no problem ... and the one across the road twards the harbour where johnson insurance was going to put their building could fit like 4 buildings and a pedestrian plaza lol if designed properly ...

Yes, I wasn't advocating surface parking, but even underground parking needs a minimum of space or they have to go really deep, and St. John's has a lot of rock, also high water table close to sea level. I believe the Johnson building might have been intended to take up that entire site, or most of it - not sure because we didn't see a site plan. Anyway, you get the jest of what I'm saying - that there isn't really a large supply of vacant land. The thing about minimum sizes for floorplates is because large companies prefer a large amount of space on one level. Condos, however can be built on a smaller lot with a good $ return. St. John's needs more residential/mixed use downtown too if it is to be more "livable".

[jeddy1989]

Originally Posted by Architype

Yes, I wasn't advocating surface parking, but even underground parking needs a minimum of space or they have to go really deep, and St. John's has a lot of rock, also high water table close to sea level. I believe the Johnson building might have been intended to take up that entire site, or most of it - not sure because we didn't see a site plan. Anyway, you get the jest of what I'm saying - that there isn't really a large supply of vacant land. The thing about minimum sizes for floorplates is because large companies prefer a large amount of space on one level. Condos, however can be built on a smaller lot with a good $ return. St. John's needs more residential/mixed use downtown too if it is to be more "livable".

yeah i agree ... what i ment by underground parking is just inclosed parking, i know that NL is really rocky so underground isnt so easy or cheap but even like the woolworth site is going to do is what i mean ... and the different grades of the land here can help in desguising it... i also think that this area is great for mixed use ... like some highrise high density (and i mean like actually tall ones and clumped together) condos (with afordable condos and mixed use buildings could be built in this area of the city... like turn this part of downtown into an actual downtown where everyone can enjoy and use while still preserving the historic downtown just east of it which will be in walking distance anyways

[Architype]

If you look (link below) on the Facebook site, there is a another photo showing the proposed Fortis Development. You can tell it is anti-development by the bland look they gave it. I agree about the taller/skinnier buildings, and that the proposed Fortis tower building would look better if it was narrower - three bays wide instead of four - but again, they have that issue of wanting larger floor areas.

Facebook Photo LINK HERE

[PoscStudent]

I saw that photo earlier today, it's actually a post card that the Newfoundland Historic Trust is selling. I think if they want to have some credibility though they should actually make a serious attempt at making the building look like it will instead of trying to make it look as bad as possible.

Were they afraid if they didn't change the colour to a puke green/grey people would like it and want it built?

[Architype]

Developers generally try and make it look too good, but in this case it's the opposite. They chose the exact spot on the Southside where it will block the view of the Basilica; move a few feet to the right or left and it wouldn't block the view.

[PoscStudent]

The scale of the building looks really off to me to but maybe it is just bigger then I thought.

[jeddy1989]

Originally Posted by Architype

If you look (link below) on the Facebook site, there is a another photo showing the proposed Fortis Development. You can tell it is anti-development by the bland look they gave it. I agree about the taller/skinnier buildings, and that the proposed Fortis tower building would look better if it was narrower - three bays wide instead of four - but again, they have that issue of wanting larger floor areas.

Facebook Photo LINK HERE

these people are too dramatic to even discuss.... i mean its a level of imaturity and thank god that its only the council that votes on developments .. cuz if it was up to the public then these anti development groups would use more propoganda then the republicans in the states ... they are simply crazy i think lol ... no mature conversation comming from them or even solutions... just oh look at this big ugly puke green building thats going to block out beautiful city .... i mean i'm sure if they went into the harbour under the water and took the shot they would have to make it look even taller and monsterous to stop whatever type of apocolypse they have made up in their heads that developments would cause .... i mean people need to start to think out of the box .. if these people could they wouldn't live in st. john's in the 1800's ... do they think that this city was full of cobble stone and perfectly painted colourful houses... it was nice but it wasnt what it is today ... the city was dirty ... there were slums and most roads were made of dirt lol ... they try to take some imaginary image of what we looked like and any changes are ruining our heritage ... they need to realize that we are in a sense sugar coading the historic area anyway and we need to move forward so it takes some give and take from everyone...

sorry about this little rant but that pic pissed me off a bit lol

[jeddy1989]

hey have a look at this... this is the city of la coruña, northwest spain ... it has a population which is about the same as metro st. john's ... but as you can see on bing.com its WAY more dense then st. john's and it is a VERY walkable city (i spent some time there a couple of summers ago) and it has a beautiful historic district but everything is in very short walking distance. also there is a bus system if you don't want to walk which seems to be doing very well for itself cuz the buses have TVs on them lol ... i think we should really have higher density it makes a world of difference ... sure the geography is different (similar coast though) and the climate is a bit warmer but it is just an example of how eurpoean cities are in regard to density ... i wish we would use europe as our references when we look to how other cities do things instead of north america

http://www.bing.com/maps/default.asp...cia%2C%20Spain

[Architype]

^ Interesting; that city has about 20 buildings of 20 storeys or more, and it says they are mainly residential:

http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?cityID=790
http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?searchID=46314103

There is a different attitude in Europe, people live differently. Nfld is really more North American in lifestyle where being auto-dependant is normal. The geography of St. John's also makes it a different situation. I think where the the terrain is flat, (like Saskatoon for example) there is much less concern about views and height.

The municipality of A Coruña has 245,164 inhabitants, and has one of the highest population densities of Spain and Europe, with around 6,700 inhabitants per square kilometer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Coru%C3%B1a

[jeddy1989]

Originally Posted by Architype

^ Interesting; that city has about 20 buildings of 20 storeys or more, and it says they are mainly residential:

http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?cityID=790
http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?searchID=46314103

There is a different attitude in Europe, people live differently. Nfld is really more North American in lifestyle where being auto-dependant is normal. The geography of St. John's also makes it a different situation. I think where the the terrain is flat, (like Saskatoon for example) there is much less concern about views and height.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Coru%C3%B1a

I know the situation is different... and i don't think we would turn into that kind of density like over night or ever but i just wanted to show that more density wont kill us lol ... and you can see in la coruna that the whole city is crammed into a MUCH smaller area then the st. john's metro area like ALOT smaller ... i'd say it might be as big as the developed area in the technical st. john's boundries ... but i think personaly that density is really good ... doesnt have to be in the historic area of DT even though there is alot of space that can be filled ... they don't all have to be like 15- 20 floors ... but the sprawl that is happening here is not a good thing... well personaly i would like to live in a more dense st. john's ... but i'm not the only citizen in the metro area lol so we'll see what happens to our city

[Architype]

What areas do you think should or could be densified?

IMO - I think Rabbittown could become a vibrant urban area interspersed with townhomes and medium sized apartment buildings and a lot more pedestrian friendly commercial streets (which don't exist now). It is centrally located and within walking distance of downtown and MUN. There is not much heritage there worth saving, and what there used to be is mostly already gone. It is in the ideal location for this kind of densification to take place.

[niccanning]

I totally agree that Rabbittown could be developed into a more urban community. It would actually be a nice little place to live - there are currently a few decent areas in that area but for the most part I believe it needs some upkeep/new development. And again- it's practically downtown and within walking distance from everything.
I believe the same could be said for Southside Road in many areas and places surrounding Memorial University - to name a few.
Clearly the city is showing some pretty desperate signs of urban sprawl but I believe we have an opportunity to combat against this (possibly make it easier for developers to design within the city as oppose to creating new subdivisions - however one does this).
Is it just easier and cheeper for developers to build in terms of subdivisions? Like off Kenmount Road?!

[HomeInMyShoes]

Confederation Building, today. The new windows on the back look mid to dark blue. I'll be curious to see what they do with the teal. I love the 50's and 60's (completed in 1960) and will be sad if we lose the traditional era colour, although in places it has seen better days. While it might not be everyone's favourite legislative building in Canada, it is at least something different.

[niccanning]

thanks for the pictures.
i really wouldn't mind getting rid of the teal panels.
looks good so far.

[nl_eng]

It's too bad that the scaffolding is still in the way as it takes away from the full effect of the new glass ... makes it look duller due to the shadowing.

My guess is that all the teal panels will be disposed of and replaced with the blue glass panels they have in place of them in the new section (the alternating "bluer" blue panels in your pictures, for lack of a better term based on my eyesight).

While on the subject of Confederation Building, I would like to see the teal roof on the House of Assembly replaced with real copper so that it eventually mimics the original House of Assembly roof on the top of the tower. The painted metal roof looks terribly out of place as it is (not well matched to the teal panels), and will look even more out of place when the new windows are finished.

[PoscStudent]

I agree 100% nl_eng the current roof drives me nuts, it jut looks like such a cheap imitation of a copper roof, and on the lower part of the building near where the current renovations have taken place there actually is a copper roof.

[Architype]

The front is now going to look more like the back with continuous blue going all the way up, and less distinction for the windows; hopefully it will look good though. It also looks like they had a big budget for scaffolding. Why didn't Historic Trust protest this loss of heritage?

Here's a pic I took a couple years ago, no one ever notices how it shamefully blocks the view of the harbour.

[Architype]

I am going out on a limb here, but here's an idea for Fortis. Please give your opinions.

If they really wanted to sell their project, they could make a more creative effort.

My idea is to break up the massing of the monotonous glass cube design.

In current design, colour is often used in this way on highrise buildings, nowhere is this more appropriate than in Nfld. which is known for it's bright and varied colours.

Reducing the size of the top section also presents less of a view blocker, and makes the building more interesting on the skyline. I have purposely left the smaller Fortis building much the same as proposed; they don't have to be identical.

(Many variations are possible; this is not to say that it would have to look exactly like this, but you get the idea.)


Photo credit - This is a makeover of the bland postcard image which is in circulation from Historic Trust.
Facebook Postcard LINK HERE

On the Water St side it could have a different treatment, and my idea would also be to retain the best of the heritage building facades.

[jeddy1989]

Originally Posted by Architype

I am going out on a limb here, but here's an idea for Fortis. Please give your opinions.

If they really wanted to sell their project, they could make a more creative effort.

My idea is to break up the massing of the monotonous glass cube design.

In current design, colour is often used in this way on highrise buildings, nowhere is this more appropriate than in Nfld. which is known for it's bright and varied colours.

Reducing the size of the top section also presents less of a view blocker, and makes the building more interesting on the skyline. I have purposely left the smaller Fortis building much the same as proposed; they don't have to be identical.

(Many variations are possible; this is not to say that it would have to look exactly like this, but you get the idea.)


Photo credit - This is a makeover of the bland postcard image which is in circulation from Historic Trust.
Facebook Postcard LINK HERE

On the Water St side it could have a different treatment, and my idea would also be to retain the best of the heritage building facades.

i completely agree!! this also makes the building have a less of a glass wall look and more of an important building look ... i think they will win over ALOT more support with some creativity (i think this is what they might be doing with the revising.. at least i hope so) and even with the colour of the windows could be done in different colours in different parts making it look like a collection of modern colourful buildings (for example the bottom portion of the building being blue windows and then the top where each section has a differnt level roof have a differnt colour widows from each different roof level down to the roof of the blue part making it look like 3 skinnier tall buildings behind the blue building which would tie in with the old fortis building or something creative and unique which would be in character with the city... lets see what they come up with