Proposed 7-story Office Building for Fitzroy Street

Rob, as you asked, here are my thoughts: 1. I think increased density is generally a Good Thing for downtown Charlottetown. It attracts residents, increases business diversity, provides a market for a broader range of services, and increases the tax base. 2. I think the lot in question is an excellent target for development; since I moved my office onto the street it’s been a falling-down old building and a muddy parking lot; there’s little in this world that wouldn’t be an improvement. 3. It’s clear that the downtown core is expanding up University and through Fitzroy Street. I see Euston Street as a natural commercial/residential firewall in this scheme, and think we should seek infill (like this development) before even considering stretching that boundary. 4. I think the four houses at the corner of Fitzroy and Queen, one of which houses my office, are worth preserving, and that, as a collection they are an important heritage resource and an important aesthetic bridge between the monolithic and generic new-style architecture and the surrounding neighbourhoods. 5. As such my only issue with the proposed new development is the lack of setback from the house next door; while I think it’s fine to go up to 98 feet, I think that to do so without completely overwhelming the house next door (and us, its neighbours) requires including a suitable amount of setback (i.e. more than “zero”, as is proposed) between the new building and the house next door.

I am a neighbour, albeit not quite close enough to be in the notification group. I agree with Peter - I think increased density in the downtown is a good thing. And, as a staunch supporter of downtown, I am thrilled to see development going on all over.I share the concerns about setbacks and scale but generally, yippee. Now, wouldn’t it be just grand if we could do something about the moribund block on University between Fitzroy and Kent (and on Kent between Queen and University)? It already looked awful - but with development going on all around it, it looks even worse.

Apologies for going off topic. *blush*

I agree with Jevon’s suggestion that we should punish property owners who leave their buildings vacant, but the first step is to stop rewarding them. You see, at some point in the past someone thought it was a good idea to allow commercial property owners to pay the much lower residential rate if their property has been vacant for five years, I believe. Not only vacant buildings, but empty commercial lots as well. I don’t understand the logic. I spoke with City staff about this only a few days ago, and there is serious talk amongst councillors about putting an end to this. It apparently requires the cooperation of the Province. To Charles, who said: “Pownal is too far away if you work downtown”. Ah…the Pownal Parkade IS downtown. And it’s not full.

That point about the taxes goes a long way toward explaining an often asked question about why so many commercial spaces, all owned by the same person, are vacant downtown. That’s a ridiculous situation and should be fixed. Maybe that person would then be inspired to rent or sell some of his properties.

I like the idea of infill and increased density, provided it complements the wonderful heritage resource that we have in Charlottetown (and P.E.I. for that matter). City and provincial development staff have to realize that we ARE different than other places on this continent. This is simply stating a fact. Our extremely limited geography and 3+ centuries of property ownership/development has given us the landscape and streetscapes that we enjoy today. To simply let what I will bluntly call ugly North American tilt-up buildings and absent-minded architectural styling take over would be a travesty to future generations. That being said, for that vacant lot next to the old Garden City Dairy, a low-level (ie. < 20 storey) building is a GOOD thing, provided it does include appropriate set-back at street level to keep the streetscape APPEARING to be part of the original 500-lot heritage district. Right now, any new housing subdivisions or commercial development in the city (I believe) requires payment of certain amounts in lieu of things such as parking spaces, parkland, etc. I think that the city should go one step further and enforce an additional fee that will go exclusively toward a significantly beefed up heritage structure fund. Such a fund could also be topped up by the Immigrant Investor Fund and should be of a sufficient amount to make a major difference in retrofitting and repurposing our numerous heritage structures in this city in order to bring them to modern standards (inside) while maintaining their charm (inside and outside). As for parking - we have had a lack of parking for decades. Every decade since the 1970s, city council after city council has tried to build parkades at multi-millions of $. And all to give us what? A few hundred more parking spots? If city council was really serious about improving mobility of this municipality, not to mention the health and well-being of its citizens, then it would bring in a massively beefed up transit system. We have close to 60,000 residents in the census agglomeration area. We also have a pretty compact geography for the “commuter shed” which stretches largely from Suffolk/Marshfield in the northeast, across to Harrington/Stanhope in the north, Hunter River/Ebenezer in the northwest, Cornwall/Bonshaw in the west and Stratford/Pownal/Mt. Herbert in the east. Why not bring in a more capable bus system and stop spending money on parking downtown? Why not start dinging the big box outlets in the areas outside downtown in order to pay for increased density, so that merchants downtown don’t suffer from less parking? There are solutions to every problem, including council’s at-large debate (hint - bring a vote on this topic to the citizens). Apologies for straying too much! :-)

I received the Planning staff report on this variance request. Planning Board is meeting on Tuesday, February 19th to discuss and make a recommendation to council. To date, of the 32 notifications that went out soliciting comments, only two (2) responses have been received. The board, quite rightly I think, interprets non-responses as “we don’t care”. If you received a notice please consider sending your thoughts on this. You can email them to Planning staff.

I’m writing my response now and will drop it off at City Hall on Monday morning.

There was a time when I would base my opinion on development with only one factor: whether or not it would look “cool.” A new seven story building in the Charlottetown skyline would look “cool” in my opinion. A new seven story office tower in Downtown Charlottetown would also bring a lot of business to the area, possibly even for our local web firms. These two factors (coolness and business) are enough for me to base my decision that this building should one-day stand ground in Downtown Charlottetown. However, the proposed location is not something that I am ready to favor just yet. We have several eye-sores in Downtown Charlottetown which need to be ripped down and replaced with good development; development which will actually do some good for our downtown core. I would like to one-day see the gas station on Fitzroy replaced with an office tower to compliment the Atlantic Technology Center and the Jean Canfield Building. The lot in question would be better served with a low level wooden development which will leave the south side of Fitzroy from University to Queen with its current appeal. The landlords have done a lot of work in recent years to fix that block up. Rewarding their hard work with a seven story tower just doesn’t seem right.