• Compteur de contenus

  • Inscription

  • Dernière visite

Réputation sur la communauté

18 Good

À propos de caribb

  • Rang
    Senior Member

Personal Information

  • Biography
    Regular guy
  • Location
  • Intérêts
  • Occupation
    IT Coordinator
  1. Limite de hauteur à 200m, pour ou contre ?

    I don't know if this is in reference to what I wrote in the last post or just thoughts of your own but I also agree that high rises don't necessarily imply success or a great city. I've traveled as well to Asia and Europe and in many cities they are out of place. Barcelona being a really good example. I wasn't suggesting building very tall buildings was a prerequisite for economic success though. In Canada we "compete" economically with Toronto, Calgary & Vancouver. We have to find ways to stand out and draw people's attention away from them and to us as we also generate our own independent economic growth. Being distinctive certainly works and Montreal on many levels is distinct but visually it's needs to be bolder and make a mark on the world stage. Montreal has a lively central core and excellent quality of life. I Just came back from Le Plateau this evening and it couldn't me more alive than it was with the active street life and restaurants full of patrons. To me lifting the restrictions on height and working with architects to design livable working spaces especially at ground level can both draw the world's attention to us and make us a leader in how to combine the two together.. melding a tall building with our vibrant city life. It's a difficult goal but could be a showcase for the world. Again though, we can do all sorts of things to draw the eyes and interest of business, tourists, potential immigrants, other Canadians, people from the other side of the world etc to us... but like you mentioned with those cities you visited that are ugly or lifeless.. it's up to us to make sure that Montreal doesn't turn into one of them and thus all the more reason to see if we can rise to the challenge. Again, maybe the solution is to leave downtown as it is with the height restrictions but fostering another area further out where in the future when needed it could be boundless.. eventually shifting the core while preserving the present and past. Perhaps it's a third option.
  2. Limite de hauteur à 200m, pour ou contre ?

    No, but I'm sure there are companies and tourists and immigrants who noticed Kuala Lumpur, Dubai and Taipei in part because the skyline stood out in their mind. It was a signal to them that something exciting was happening in those cities versus others around them.. that's all. It's a sign of growth. One of many signs mind you and a superficial one but yet important because it grabs the headlines and indicates the city is undergoing "change". The bridges are iconic no doubt but you also need to show the world something new now and then. It helps to be bold and a bit showy if only to generate interest in the city. The rest is up to us to keep people interested.. For Mount Royal.. Many cities have mountains in them. It's beautiful to visit and a true gem but I'm not going to hold back the city's economic development just because our success hides it.. People can see it from the east, the north and the west sides if they really want to see it.. I would hope if they are downtown or the south shore they are more interested in the skyline than the mountain. However, as I stated in the end I'm not really concerned regardless. I rather doubt if they lifted the restrictions we'd suddenly have 4 or 5 60 story buildings or more under construction.. that would take decades by our growth timeline. We'd be lucky to get one in 10 years and even then it would probably be a condominium/hotel rather than an office tower.. So we have time to work this out. Maybe there's another part of the city (extreme western or eastern ends or southern Griffintown where a zoning for very high or unlimited height can be placed. The downtown core may have to shift a little from the current area to let that happen leaving both the mountain visible and height restrictions removed or lessened.
  3. Limite de hauteur à 200m, pour ou contre ?

    The height limit is an interesting question. On the one hand in some cases like Dubai, Taipei or Kuala Lumpur we only recognize their skylines because of the super tall towers they have that distinguish them from other cities. There are strong arguments for and against. Those very tall buildings stand out and make the city stand out with them thereby presumably drawing in extra business and investment interest.. on the other hand very tall and super tall buildings tend to be cold and sometimes makes the surrounding areas de-human and not to mention very windy. I think the challenge is to lift the restriction but impose some architectural restraints on the buildings so that they can both be tall, innovative, perhaps green and more "humanized" at ground level so it invites human traffic and not scares them away all the while giving Montreal an newer refreshed image to the world at large. The argument for protecting Mount Royal has never gone over with me. There are 4 sides to view the mountain and no one goes downtown to see it.Furthermore putting up 2 30 story buildings instead of one 60 story would result in extra blockage of the mountain from the ground level or lower levels of buildings facing the mountain. l I've always suspected it's more about those living on the mountain (or South Shore) having their views blocked from the mountainside and the resulting devaluation of their property values.. Lastly I guess the bigger question is does Montreal really need higher buildings. It's the rare decade when any 50 story office building is constructed here to begin with.. let alone more than one so even if the restriction was lifted would it result in any real change if the demand for taller buildings doesn't even exist at this point?
  4. Statistiques PAX

    Holy crap is right! Wow!
  5. Interjet plans Montreal launch in July 2017

    Great news for sure! Mexico seems to be growing these days. Hopefully a Monterrey route will materialize at some point.
  6. Holiday Inn Montréal Centre-Ville - 37 étages

    Great shot.. love everything about it.
  7. Air Canada Announces Montreal-Lima

    Nice. A breakthrough into South America. Loving it!
  8. Air Canada just announced YUL-LIM today along with PHX
  9. I like it. Good move. It will make our taxis stand out more. The "Bonjour" is a nice touch.
  10. Yul. Mid field terminal possibility

    Ok sorry. I looked but didn't see anything. Mods delete this thread then please.. two people have already complained.
  11. Yul. Mid field terminal possibility

    *That's where I wrote it but when I went to post it just vanished. I couldn't find it after that. I don't know what happened but I intended it to be in the YULAviation section.*
  12. This article suggests YULis considering a new mid field terminal for future expansion. Discussion has started on*
  13. Yes, Wow, Icelandair and Air Canada (but with a Rouge *A319 I believe)
  14. Interesting.. Tokyo probably has market potential so someone will eventially fly it if not ANA. TAP/Lisbon I think is a shoe in. Maybe Abidjan if it's politically stable (an add on from Dakar?). Also lots of things happening over the next couple of years. I wonder what will replace the A330s and 767s once they leave the fleet (737-10's and 789's perhaps). What type of routes will the CSeries open up.. might bring some new feeds into YUL from cities that aren't obtainable now maybe even trans-Atlantic (Rekjavik?), Dublin?) or northern South America.. plus some needed US connections (Detroit to feed the North African routes, Seattle, New Orleans?).. and what will they contribute to or seek from the Boeing MOM concept. The remark about Hawaiian mentioning YUL is interesting.. I've known more people to go there lately than at any time in my life here, maybe it's a possibility. Fingers crossed,, it's interesting times.
  15. I read this morning Air China is keeping their 3 class 77W's on the YUL route (5x weekly this summer). It had been scheduled to be run with 789's. I take this as a positive - staying with more seats and not switching to a 2 class version. Perhaps these China flights are drawing in more people and wealthier clientele than expected.*