Proposed 7-story Office Building for Fitzroy Street

And it will probably be built without a basement or anyplace to park. The city will probably lease them some spots from the parkade, which is already full most days. I also think this building will go over ten stories tall by the time it is built.

Better get used to it. The area across University Ave from the Jean Canfield building (service station, dry cleaners, and a small apartment building) are also slated for development.

Parking is certainly becoming more of a problem again. A good problem to have, but a solution is required. I don’t believe there are any more spaces to lease in the Queen parkade. A task force consisting of individuals from CADC, DCI, among others have just completed a study on the issue of parking downtown. I have not actually seen the report yet.

Where this proposed new building is concerned, they will have to satisfy the parking requirements somehow, but the issue to be dealt with first is the variances; height and setback. I will be reading comments here and taking them into consideration at our next Planning Board meeting.

As one of the “landlords” I wholeheartedly agreed with Peter’s suggestions. The height doesn’t bother me. It is the 0 variance from the house next door. For me it’s more of a design and aesthetic issue. To have balance on this side of the street there needs to be a space between the new building and the house. To butt up right against it will not only be overwhelming but will also look odd.

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.

I think that letting the Jean Canfield building go up without proper underground parking was a big mistake. Getting rid of parking should not be considered at all as a way of “discounting” the cost of development in a city. If a development cannot handle the cost of the burden they create in the city then the development really just isn’t economically sound.

Speaking of development. I am curious why Charlottetown does not do more to punish landlords who seemingly make no effort to rent the vacant space they have available. (If that is even possible… it may not be,. but it might be) — It seems to me that it is worth exploring whether or not Charlottetown’s economy is so bad that so many storefronts go unoccupied. For its size, Charlottetown seems pretty vibrant, and you do see new businesses going up in far less “prime” locations on a regular basis. Are there even “For lease” signs in the windows of a lot of these vacant properties?

There must be some way to encourage a turnover in these buildings?

Apologies for going off topic. *blush*

Screw a new office building, that space should be zoned for another parkade. I’ve been on the waiting list to get into the Fitzroy one for about 5 months now; the one on Queen has been full for years; and Pownal is too far away if you work downtown. The the JCB putting another 600 people int he downtown core (well, most are moving from the ATC or DJM on Kent… but you get the idea) Charlottetown needs parking more than another office building. As Jevon said: there is plenty of available rental space downtown. What we don’t have is parking.

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.

Charles: Pownal parkade is not that far away. In all seriousness — it is a fine place to park and cheap as well.

Rob: Wow! You get a reward for leaving your property vacant right now? That is insane. I can’t wait to see the end of that, and can’t imagine that it would take much work to convince council and the province to go along… (then again, I am often surprised at how politics work,. or don’t. or do)

Can’t wait to hear more.

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.

In response to the comments about downtown parking, or the lack thereof, I would suggest that the city direct more resources toward strengthening and making more attractive some NON-single-passenger-vehicle modes of transportation such as public transit, bike lanes and bike parking, as well as maintaining the pedestrian friendliness of our streetscapes. We need to reduce pressure on the current parking capacity by diversifying people’s transportation options, not investing in more ugly concrete boxes. On the other hand, when the sea level rises, the top of the parkades just might be the driest spots in the city.

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! :-)

Progress requires progressive thinking AND action. Agreed? If yes, proceed.

1. Vacant commercial space in Winnipeg is taxed at DOUBLE the regular commercial rate. If in disrepair and/or still vacant after one year the City has the right to demolish the premises to make way for new dvelopment or sell it another developer**. Time for tax ACTION.

2. Perhaps the City’s economic development authorities (who are suredly trained in this area of expertise**…) have already researched this approach and made recommendations to Council. After all, any one who ever visits the City asks why all the prime niche store fronts are VACANT. City should take ACTION to connect the dots through well researched and prepared reports by City staff, not consultants who do the City staffers work…

3. City could/would/should tax active commercial space downtown at preferential rates (i.e. lower taxes) to encourage downtown development and stop West Royalty and Sherwood from poaching government offices with cheap land, ample parking and ultimately undermining the downtown. This ACTION would be supported by the City’s Oficial Plan (which some Councillors have never read).

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 got some clarification on this whole reversion from commercial to residential tax rate after being vacant for 5 years thingy. I try to explain here.

I would like to see the building constructed. The only complaint seems to becoming from mainly parking issues. Well, here’s an idea- walk, bike, car pool. Islanders (of all the places I have lived in North America), seem to drive everywhere unnecessarily. And now I hearing they would reject a building that would house full-time employment- in general because of laziness, or feel to big for public transit.

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.

FYI - Proposed New Office Building Now 8-Stories

I’d like to know who is planing on putting this building up? May be a person can get some work out of it.