[Saint John] Fundy Quay (South Market Wharf) | 19-6s | 70m-26m | U/C

[UptownJeff]

Originally Posted by Fischbob

Article in the TJ today titled "Waterfront Announcement Expected Sometime This Year". Later in the article it's stated the executive director "hopes" the announcement will be before the end of the year.

This is a joke of epic proportions. Imminent......so is the end of the world....which, in my opinion will occur first.

[saintjohnirish☘]

When you thinking of all the prime land for future development uptown it's incredible. Sugar refinery, Long Wharf and the Fundy Quay. WHEN it does happen, will really be a game changer with some quality development. Entire new neighbourhoods could be built

[Fischbob]

Some interesting information in next Monday's Council agenda, where several of the City's agencies, boards and commissions have brief status reports.

SJDC's report has a couple statements about the Coast Guard site:
- In the "High-Level 2017 Performance/Service Objectives" section: "Development of Fundy Quay alternative strategy"
- In the "Recent Accomplishments" section: "Fundy Quay: environmental costing complete based on high-density buildout ($3.7M). Currently assessing mid-low density buildout options and associated costs. Anchor tenant has chosen alternative option for new building."

(Source: http://www.saintjohn.ca/site/media/S...a%20Packet.pdf pages 411-412)

Unfortunately, this leaves us with more questions than answers.
- What is the "alternative strategy" and why is it necessary?
- Does the exploration of "mid-low density buildout options" mean it's possible the site's density/development potential won't be maximized? I would think environmental remediation costs would be similar regardless of the density unless they take out the residential component entirely (which would be a huge mistake).
- Who is their anchor tenant and what are the implications of them choosing the "alternative option"?

It's clear that things are happening behind the scenes, but it's not so clear whether or how the overall vision for the project may be changing, and if it's for the better or worse.

[Wolkenkratzerliebhab]

Originally Posted by Fischbob

Some interesting information in next Monday's Council agenda, where several of the City's agencies, boards and commissions have brief status reports.

SJDC's report has a couple statements about the Coast Guard site:
- In the "High-Level 2017 Performance/Service Objectives" section: "Development of Fundy Quay alternative strategy"
- In the "Recent Accomplishments" section: "Fundy Quay: environmental costing complete based on high-density buildout ($3.7M). Currently assessing mid-low density buildout options and associated costs. Anchor tenant has chosen alternative option for new building."

(Source: http://www.saintjohn.ca/site/media/S...a%20Packet.pdf pages 411-412)

Unfortunately, this leaves us with more questions than answers.
- What is the "alternative strategy" and why is it necessary?
- Does the exploration of "mid-low density buildout options" mean it's possible the site's density/development potential won't be maximized? I would think environmental remediation costs would be similar regardless of the density unless they take out the residential component entirely (which would be a huge mistake).
- Who is their anchor tenant and what are the implications of them choosing the "alternative option"?

It's clear that things are happening behind the scenes, but it's not so clear whether or how the overall vision for the project may be changing, and if it's for the better or worse.

An alternative option could be, hopefully, a mixture of high-density and mid to low density, could it not?

[saintjohnirish☘]

High density mixed with lower density could work well here. I mean Halifax's waterfront has low-rise developments that form small communities/urban nodes.

But with Long Wharf being developed at some point, I would think a low rise community would work best there. Long Wharf could literally become an entire grid network like, a whole new neighbourhood— it is that large.

It seems with the Quay things are a wee pressing. Could SJ Waterfront and local MPs work together to bring a government agency as a anchor tenant? Either way, having the Quay developed is better still since developers may be more keen to densify it as time goes on and the market heats up

[Whaler]

Originally Posted by saintjohnirish☘

High density mixed with lower density could work well here. I mean Halifax's waterfront has low-rise developments that form small communities/urban nodes.

But with Long Wharf being developed at some point, I would think a low rise community would work best there. Long Wharf could literally become an entire grid network like, a whole new neighbourhood— it is that large.

It seems with the Quay things are a wee pressing. Could SJ Waterfront and local MPs work together to bring a government agency as a anchor tenant? Either way, having the Quay developed is better still since developers may be more keen to densify it as time goes on and the market heats up

Long wharf will not be developed anytime soon if at all.

[Fischbob]

Waterfront Development's 2016 annual report is in Monday's Council agenda (Source). Unfortunately, there's no new information about Fundy Quay in the report - just that negotiations were ongoing between the developer and an anchor tenant behind closed doors.

[saintjohnirish☘]

Originally Posted by Whaler

Long wharf will not be developed anytime soon if at all.

Whys that now?

[thefishingnut]

Originally Posted by saintjohnirish☘

Whys that now?

The city has had a focus on the Coast Guard site development for over a decade, and not only has a shovel not hit the ground, they don't have an anchor tenant or site plan. This thread was created over 4 years ago in a fit of excitement because of an imminent announcement which we are still waiting for. Time goes by very quickly for major development initiatives in tiny cities. Even if a project comes together, it'll be the focus for waterfront development for another decade to fill it out and fully occupy it before someone is interested in doing another large project.

The Long Wharf site is substantially bigger, and the previous anchor tenant (IOL) has forever been lost. Add in a shrinking population, sky high commercial vacancy which would be dramatically worsened by space created at the Coast Guard site, and I'd be surprised if the city puts together a Long Wharf Development Agency in the next 20 years to initiate things.

Sugar Refinery site - significant contamination, I'd be surprised if it is developed in my lifetime, i.e. the next 40 years.

[Whaler]

Long Wharf is owned by the Port Authority.
Even when Irving considered a building there, the port would still use this terminal.
If you can remember, the city was trading the sugar refinery for a portion of Long Wharf.

By the way the IOL project has not been forever lost! It is presently being built at King Square.

[Ire Narissis]

Originally Posted by Whaler

By the way the IOL project has not been forever lost! It is presently being built at King Square.

I think what he means is forever lost from the Long Wharf site.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by Ire Narissis

I think what he means is forever lost from the Long Wharf site.

It's fine. The King's Square site and end-product is better anyway.

[saintjohnirish☘]

Originally Posted by JHikka

It's fine. The King's Square site and end-product is better anyway.

Cheers to that, much better.

[Ire Narissis]

Oh, for sure.

Long Wharf deserves a development that would be more welcoming to cruise ship passengers disembarking there.

[saintjohnirish☘]

Originally Posted by Ire Narissis

Oh, for sure.

Long Wharf deserves a development that would be more welcoming to cruise ship passengers disembarking there.

Id say save Long Wharf for residential developments in a grid and public space/pathways along the water

[kwajo]

Originally Posted by saintjohnirish☘

Id say save Long Wharf for residential developments in a grid and public space/pathways along the water

I agree with setting up a street grid and laying out a mixed-use development on Long Wharf, especially since the surface area of it is huge. You can easily fit four or more standard central peninsula-scale blocks within its bounds, which is why I always thought the IOL Long Wharf proposal was a waste of good development space.

[Ire Narissis]

Mixed use with pedestrian streets, light commercial at street level, and condos above. With a mini-terminal area for cruise arrivals that leads directly into the pedestrian-oriented commercial strip of the development... Something like that would be awfully nice.

[OliverD]

Definitely a lot of potential for Long Wharf. Reminds me a bit of the site of the proposed Portland Company redevelopment in Portland ME. http://www.cpb2.com

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by Ire Narissis

Mixed use with pedestrian streets, light commercial at street level, and condos above. With a mini-terminal area for cruise arrivals that leads directly into the pedestrian-oriented commercial strip of the development... Something like that would be awfully nice.

Emphasis on pedestrian streets.

It would be very simple to have a central oval of connecting pedestrian/mixed-use streets surrounded by 4-6 storey mixed-use commercial and residential with a central open square. Limited parking given nearby options at both Harbour Station and Main Street.

Loop Harbour Passage so it travels along the waterfront of Long Wharf and, if you're ambitious, create another boardwalk. There's a lot of different opportunities.

Originally Posted by OliverD

Definitely a lot of potential for Long Wharf. Reminds me a bit of the site of the proposed Portland Company redevelopment in Portland ME. http://www.cpb2.com

Agreed, although the Portland example used what looks like existing buildings (similar to Griffintown in Montreal and other post-industrial residential gentrification areas). Still, the general idea is what we'd ideally like to envision for a future Long Wharf.

[Whaler]

Development of Long Wharf won't happen.
The wharf or terminal is to valuable and rare in this port.
With all the work done to the port over the last 50 years, the port has actually shrunk.
Therefore the demand for side on wharfage is in high demand.

As for water side expansion, the old sugar refiner site would be more applicable as it is now owned by the city.