[St. John's] The Official Project Thread - Page 474

SignalHillHiker · #**9461** Posted **Dec 3, 2013, 2:00 PM**

Completely agree. We saw those new renderings before and hoped they were from some sort of initial design phase.

They've turned what would have been a beautiful building into cheap infill. Looks completely out of place so close to downtown now. Should be out in Mount Pearl.

statbass · #**9462** Posted **Dec 3, 2013, 2:56 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SignalHillHiker

Completely agree. We saw those new renderings before and hoped they were from some sort of initial design phase.

They've turned what would have been a beautiful building into cheap infill. Looks completely out of place so close to downtown now. Should be out in Mount Pearl.

Problem is that Mount Pearl would never approve a building 5 stories high, that's way too tall!

jjavman · #**9463** Posted **Dec 3, 2013, 3:26 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Townie709

The name of the Steele Hotel is "Jag". "He says the theme of Jag will be one of music - with a strong presence of art music, and rock and roll."

http://www.vocm.com/mobile/newsartic...?mn=2&id=41278

I'm confused.. A rock and roll themed hotel?

I was thinking more of an "alcohol fueled episode" hotel ;-)

A325 · #**9464** Posted **Dec 4, 2013, 4:49 PM**

I'm also disappointed in the new sketches. I think the building should have some more curb appela especially since it is directly on the sidewalk. The original design was a nice mix of brick, glass, and color. The new sketch is just different shades of brick. Not very creative...

jeddy1989 · #**9465** Posted **Dec 4, 2013, 6:42 PM**

I'm not concerned about the aesthetics of this building, I think it's another case of -not detailed renders- and I believe those second batch of renders are more to show the scale IMHO. This company's office moved to Lime street just behind the development and being a 20 million dollar development I think this is a big one for them and I personally don't believe that they are going to make an eyesore... but that's just me.

Architype · #**9466** Posted **Dec 5, 2013, 5:11 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by A325

I'm also disappointed in the new sketches. I think the building should have some more curb appela especially since it is directly on the sidewalk. The original design was a nice mix of brick, glass, and color. The new sketch is just different shades of brick. Not very creative...

It's a bit surprising because this is a site where they could have gone all out with a heritage inspired design, but it seems like they are going for a more modern and industrial look which I think is just as appropriate. The site was previously industrial I believe; it also looks a bit like the nearby hospital - http://goo.gl/maps/zMm9m .

Source: http://www.thetelegram.com/News/Loca...chant-condos/1

jeddy1989 · #**9467** Posted **Dec 5, 2013, 12:59 PM**

^^ I'm pretty sure the lack of detail has to do wih this program they used to show the scale of the project lol ... in the program they couldn't even get the truck to look like it is going down the hill hahaha the front is just kind of floating there .. I have no doubt in my mind that they will have more details to come lol

Horsell · #**9468** Posted **Dec 5, 2013, 3:41 PM**

There is, IMO, a good editorial in the Telegram today that pretty much sums up how many on this current City Council view things.

http://www.thetelegram.com/Opinion/E...ice-is-right/1

jjavman · #**9469** Posted **Dec 5, 2013, 3:49 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Horsell

There is, IMO, a good editorial in the Telegram today that pretty much sums up how many on this current City Council views things.

http://www.thetelegram.com/Opinion/E...ice-is-right/1

This would be a great time to resubmit former proposals that were defeated by the Shannyites. We finally have a pro-development council!

jeddy1989 · #**9470** Posted **Dec 5, 2013, 4:00 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjavman

This would be a great time to resubmit former proposals that were defeated by the Shannyites. We finally have a pro-development council!

woot!
and that article is a crock IMHO

It's soooo incredibly irritating how they keep comparing that one foot extension with the extra floor ... there IS a HUGE difference in adding a floor to a brand new building to make it economically viable to replace eyesores ... and ripping the roof off of a heritage building JUST to add a foot ... I mean seriously ...

Horsell · #**9471** Posted **Dec 5, 2013, 4:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjavman

This would be a great time to resubmit former proposals that were defeated by the Shannyites. We finally have a pro-development council!

"Pro-development" shouldn't always have to mean bad development, or ugly development, or out of scale development. SMART development should be able to trump anything.

The real concern I have is with developments that have not been well thought out. Perhaps this is by design sometimes, it is always easier to get something extra approved, (or something changed) when you are 80% through a development.

I am very much pro-development when it is GOOD development.

displacednewfie · #**9472** Posted **Dec 5, 2013, 6:59 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjavman

This would be a great time to resubmit former proposals that were defeated by the Shannyites. We finally have a pro-development council!

Until I read of something with substantial height and girth being approved then I will agree that you guys finally got smart and voted a pro-development council.

displacednewfie · #**9473** Posted **Dec 5, 2013, 7:00 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Horsell

"Pro-development" shouldn't always have to mean bad development, or ugly development, or out of scale development. SMART development should be able to trump anything.

The real concern I have is with developments that have not been well thought out. Perhaps this is by design sometimes, it is always easier to get something extra approved, (or something changed) when you are 80% through a development.

I am very much pro-development when it is GOOD development.

Nor should "Smart Development" be stuck at a measly 4 stories in height.

Horsell · #**9474** Posted **Dec 5, 2013, 8:16 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by displacednewfie

Nor should "Smart Development" be stuck at a measly 4 stories in height.

I agree, but 20 stories of "ugly" doesn't make it good. By the same token, I've seen some pretty bad 4 story proposals too. It's a balancing act.

john98642 · #**9475** Posted **Dec 7, 2013, 7:35 PM**

Someone explain to me why there is a seniors home high-rise near Quidi Vidi Lake? Actually so backwards it is hilarious, plus it is very un-aesthetic. Having developments like that, then the city getting their jimmies all rustled about a nice building >4 stories DT??? Enjoy the amount of parkades being built DT outnumbering the amount of nice condos DT. What a "smart city" solution. /s

ed0797 · #**9476** Posted **Dec 7, 2013, 10:51 PM**

I just don't get why all the developer's are so keen on building huge high rises in the middle of downtown anyways! I get building on top of things like the AP garage or redevelopment like MIX and Marconi, but why cram new office space/hotel into the historic center. Build all you want around the West end , Stavangar, Kenmount or even Ropewalk? Oil company's and seniors don't need to be close to the harbor, people come to NL because that area doesn't look like every other city. I believe in the next coming year development in the downtown core should seek other places, what we've got coming is enough. I also think developers should step up their game and start building sustainable and somewhat unique buildings and not just promising to and changing their plans for a cheap profit.

Of course there's more dimensions to this than just building here or there, development is a serious thing as we all know. And if the council actually took their full role and took transit into their hands, abolished and added limits that made sense in these times the city wouldn't continue to look like this sprawling, developer controlled, poorly planned accident it is now.

People don't hate development and neither do I. But smart development means a lot more than what councils giving, St. John's deserves better in my opinion.

Architype · #**9477** Posted **Dec 8, 2013, 12:37 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by john98642

Someone explain to me why there is a seniors home high-rise near Quidi Vidi Lake? Actually so backwards it is hilarious, plus it is very un-aesthetic. Having developments like that, then the city getting their jimmies all rustled about a nice building >4 stories DT??? Enjoy the amount of parkades being built DT outnumbering the amount of nice condos DT. What a "smart city" solution. /s

Maybe you mean the old General nurses residence (Southcott Hall)? It was built in 1964 by the provincial government, so I doubt the city had any say in it at all. Plus, at that time modern styled highrises were a relatively new thing. As for "smart" development, it's only smart if built in the right location. I think developers won't even try to do much "urban" development in St. John's, there is still too much opposition even to reasonably scaled projects. I see Halifax is booming though.

SignalHillHiker · #**9478** Posted **Dec 8, 2013, 4:07 PM**

December 8, 2013

Fortis:

Fortis and 351:

351:

Architype · #**9479** Posted **Dec 8, 2013, 8:53 PM**

^ Great photos. Is 351 finished yet, as in any part of it occupied or open?

jjavman · #**9480** Posted **Dec 8, 2013, 10:25 PM**

[QUOTE=SignalHillHiker;6367558]December 8, 2013

Pics deleted ..............

That last one is striking BTW.

I was thinking while looking at it, about someone's past comment about the "buildings all being the same height and looking like someone went across them with a hedgetrimmer" or something to that effect.

This would certainly be true in this shot except for the hill, which in the case of the Cabot Place buildings, have given them a stairstep effect. Thank goodness for hills I guess.