Another epic fail: St. John’s downtown development
Posted on: Saturday, October 3rd, 2009
St. John’s City Council turned down another proposed office building development in downtown. This time at 345 Water Street, the former site of the Arcade building, a Newfoundland based discount variety store chain (1938-1995). The site is a scar on downtown and hinders other economic development around it’s location; it’s been an empty lot since 2004.
The proposed development was a modern looking five story building, facing the harbour and housing a mix of retail, restaurant and office space. The development would also offer lower level parking off Harbour Drive.
St. John’s has the lowest rate of office vacancy in the country, hovering just about 1%. Does any one in our newly elected city council have a plan to deal with this problem, which is a major roadblock in the development of the economy for St. John’s and all of NL?
October 3rd, 2009 at 3:12 pm
I’m all about saving the ‘culture and heritage’ and all that, but stuff like this angers me.
October 3rd, 2009 at 3:47 pm
I think we need to move past this dichotomy that says its either development on one side of the fence and preservation on the other. We can have smart development while preserving the look and feel of the city. All too often cities rush headlong into caving to developers who end up changing the nature of neighbourhoods, which are great and beautiful for a short time but lead to further hollowing out of downtown cores. The reality of it is that downtown does not need more office space given who the current traffic congestion at times and the total lack of parking. Why not see more development in big box land or on Kenmount to offer boring looking office space? Lets start seeing development that will attract more people downtown to spend money and increase quality of life. A new movie theatre, a shopping plaza for small business, more restaurant space and a new library would be far more welcome then another office building.
October 3rd, 2009 at 4:15 pm
Shannie has proposed developing a modified set of regulations for that entire block. That way buildings there can get a few more storied, perhaps, but to offset these developers’ benefit over others they will be required to include public amenities in the property.
That might include shops, parking, who knows. But the sooner we get this together, the better…
read more here: http://www.shannie.ca/press-room/shannie-proposes-a-transitional-block-downtown.aspx
October 3rd, 2009 at 4:40 pm
Doesn’t make much sense, does it?
I’d like to see someone explain the possible reasoning behind it. Or are they doing it “just because”?
October 3rd, 2009 at 6:56 pm
If you’re going to veto someone’s plan, you’d best have one of your own to suggest.
This rule applies to Pizza Toppings, Halo 3 tactics, and Urban Planning equally.
October 4th, 2009 at 7:23 pm
That block is a disaster. I agree with poster #2 that more people in search of parking would be bad, but disagree that there are other developments that would be better economically than multiple floors of people in decent paying office jobs who eat out in the area and get their shopping done at lunch. The shops around the are where the banks are headquartered do quite well with foot traffic. Water Street is underdeveloped, dirty and covered in panhandlers. Some new developments would go a long way.
October 4th, 2009 at 10:23 pm
“Modern-looking” can mean a hell of a lot of things, you know.
October 5th, 2009 at 1:28 am
One problem is the developer did not release their plans to the public for anyone to make an intelligent opinion. The city needs to get things approved like they do everywhere else, without arguing and complaining with every development. This five storey building is not too big or too tall for downtown.
October 5th, 2009 at 11:16 am
@D’Arcy Butler
The reality of it is that downtown does not need more office space given who the current traffic congestion at times and the total lack of parking.
At 1% vacancy we need MUCH MORE office space in the downtown. The traffic congestion is a failure of civic planning also and could be vastly improved with better public transit and parking structure.
Why not see more development in big box land or on Kenmount to offer boring looking office space?
That will only add to the uncontrolled suburbanization of St. John’s. The city is already FAR too large and needs to start building UP and stop building OUT. The rest of North America has already experienced the devastating affects of suburbanization, why can’t we learn from others mistakes instead of trying the same formula and expecting different results.
October 5th, 2009 at 11:17 am
@Michael
At this point something from biblical times would look better than a hole in the ground.
October 6th, 2009 at 12:37 pm
Feltham nailed it. Putting more office space in “big box land” is only going to result in more sprawl, and St. John’s already has a huge excess of that.
October 6th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
@Mark B.
A great way to put things in perspective is when you compare St. John’s to Vancouver (not the CMA’s, but city propers).
St. John’s has over 4 TIMES the amount of land developed within it’s city boundaries with 1/4 the population of Vancouver. And, we have only really begun to kick into high gear with suburban development. Give it another ten years and the city will be bankrupt from it’s inability to keep up with infrastructure maintenance.
October 7th, 2009 at 1:09 pm
Agree 100%. There has to be a big change in public perception for anything to be changed though. The classic response that I hear is “This isn’t Toronto; people want their space”.
October 9th, 2009 at 1:24 am
Dear Folks,
Remember, we all get the council we deserve… because we elected them, or failed to vote for who we really wanted.
So we must live with our choices and pressure them to do what we want, not what they want. Anyone remember Andy Wells? Not a whole lot of public opinion had any impression there, whatsoever.
Without telling them what to do, not much will happen for the next 4 years. Mark my words.
Best regards,
Ward Pike