Maisonneuve

I think the government made the wrong decision. Quebecers do not like the idea of putting good money after bad on the Olympic Stadium. Period. They said that this $870 million project is easier to sell to the population than a $2 Billion demolition. Putting that questionable demolition figure aside for a moment, let's just say we accept it as real for the sake of argument. If they wanted to announce a project that the population would be completely (85-90%) in favour of, they should have announced the following: Today, we're announcing an $8 Billion project to completely reimagine the Olympic Park site. We're building 30,000 social housing units all over the Olympic Park site, spread out over X-number of buildings, with Y-number of mixed-use amenities. Our private developer partners, Company ABC and Company EFG are investing in the project too allowing us to integrate market-rate units in 10% of each building because we think it's socially responsible to mix classes. This is the largest social housing project in all of North America. This project will take 10 years to complete. And the demolition of the Olympic Stadium is part of the project. Had the government announced that, less people would be upset. 30,000 units of social housing, plus we get rid of the Big O too, we're killing two birds with the same stone! An $8 Billion mixed-use project that gives us affordable housing would have been an easier sell to the population than: We're investing $870 million into a new roof for the Big O Taylor Swift, Taylor Swift, Taylor Swift! (Conversation for another thread: Sure, we'll still need a stadium, but something we're only going to use maximum 20-50 days of the year can be anywhere, like at the end of the REM line in Brossard. No roof required. Grey Cups, Canada Soccer matches, European soccer exhibitions matches, NFL regular season games, NHL outdoor games, and international artist concerts. There's virgin land at the end of the REM line in Brossard to do build whatever stadium we want. To build our version of Foxboro, Metlife, or Soldier Field. I wouldn't put an MLB stadium there, but a special events stadium sure. If it's once in a while, people would take the REM to Brossard just like they go off island to go to Osheaga. But as I said, another convo for another thread).

Of course Dinu Bumbaru will be quoted in such an article. He always is.

Mon rêve serait de construire un nouveau stade pour les Expos sur le site d'Owens Illinois sur la rue Wellington à côté du 15 dans Pointe-St. Charles. Il faudrait réaménager le Parc Marguerite Bourgeouys à côté, mais c'est faisable. Deux stations de métro entre 10 minutes en marchant du stade. L'autoroute just à côté pour les partisants qui arrivent par voiture de Décarie et la 20 Ouest et de la Rive-Sud. Il aurait des autobus sur Wellington du station REM au Bassin Peel jusqu'au stade, et éventuellement un tram reliant Verdun à Vieux-Montréal. J'ai utilisé le plan et un image du Yankee Stadium pour ma vision. J'ai peut-être placé le stade à une plus grosse échelle que requis, mais sur un site de 800 mètres large, c'est faisable.

In Montreal, the media is always to blame, especially when it comes to building/construction/urban planning, etc... Think about it... For everything else, the news (no matter the medium) gets an expert who explains the technical to the layperson, either in the 3-minute story itself, or a standalone 5-minute plus interview. If it's in print, it's an OP-ED: A medical story, they get a doctor to explain the issue in a 5 minute interview. An economic story, they get an economist to explain the issue in a 5 minute interview. Climate, sexual assault, aviation, space travel, tourism, politics, whatever the story, they find an expert and they explain it in a 5 minute interview. Host asks questions, experts answer and explain. Terrific. COVID, my word, how many times did we see doctors on the news doing 5 minute interviews explaining transmission of the virus, masking, variants, testing, vaccine efficacy, boosters, etc... Montreal News people and reporters, please, educate your audience!!! You do it for everything! But for some reason Montreal news treats construction as if the opinion of every Tom, Dick, Harry, Lise, Claire, and Elodie matters more than an actual expert explaining things. When it comes to stories about the REM, or any architecture/construction/engineering project, the story always goes like this: Random reporter who knows absolutely nothing about construction other than it's part of their "beat" asks Monsieur-Madame-Tout le monde on the street "what do you think of the REM being delayed....again?" The Caisse's explanation is portrayed as "The Caisse claims", "The Caisse insists", "The Caisee promises". Then they follow up the Caisse's explanations with the adversarial "but some experts aren't so sure". Then they play a clip of a third party engineer or former CJAD traffic reporter turned traffic consultant "critiquing" what the Caisse explained. I understand that the news doesn't want to appear to be doing PR for the Caisse, but the public would be better served with a third party explanation (not just critique) of how construction works. Same for architecture and urban design. The news should get an engineer whose designed and built similar train projects and who has been watching the project, explain what's going on, what are some of the things that could go wrong in the lead up to the opening, what are the challenges, what feats have been achieved so far, what should people expect opening week/ and months, years, decades later, etc... In some of these news stories about the REM, reporters, who know nothing about how creating things in the built environment actually works, include things in their stories like people complaining "If the REM stations don't have parking, nobody is going to use it and it's going to be another white elephant." No, No, No. Instead of letting Joe Blow Bouchard from Pincourt say that 1960s crap into the reporter's mic at Ste. Catherine and Peel, why not get an urban planner who will say what the public needs to understand about the REM which is "The REM is a real estate project masquerading as a transit project. Having parking next to each station defeats the purpose. The first couple of years, fine, but in the years and decades to come, each station will be surrounded by dense, mixed-use buildings, of varying stories in height. Ten years from now and more, every station will be surrounded by it's own mini-city, not parking lots. It's what we in the urban planning field call TOD-Transit-oriented design." So many people don't understand what the REM is, even though the Caisse has told us what it is from jump. The REM is laying the ground work for the vertical evolution of our metropolis for the rest of the 21st century. McDonald's is a real estate company that sells hamburgers. Starbucks is a real estate company that sells coffee. The REM is a real estate project that will sell condos and dense, multi-level mixed-used developments It would be great if third party urban planners could be invited onto the news to explain this, rather than this suburban, 20th century, boomer freak out from Montrealers on the streets downtown about "why isn't the REM finished yet and will there be enough parking??"

This whole "the opening of the REM has been delayed again" narrative has some strong ArE We ThEre YeT vibes to it. Like the media needs to chill out, it will be ready when it's ready. They did the same thing with the new Champlain Bridge. It's not a festival or a short-term event. It's infrastructure to last 100 years. If it opens several weeks after what they proposed, big **cking deal.

Avec le centre-ville après le pont, on dirait le logo des Mets de New York.

Burlington, one of Montreal's two U.S. suburbs.

I am hopeful about a return of baseball to Montreal, but under the right conditions. Initially, I thought Bronfman and the group started this project well, but along the way they made three mistakes: 1)The two-city strategy was never going to work. I don't care how many business or media people thought that it was "a good idea" or "innovative." It was never going to work because fans in neither city would accept that. The two city-idea, and MLB's initial interest in the idea, seemed to me like a ploy to get something out of somebody, to convince someone of something that wasn't there, or to raise the specter of some threat. Basically, it served as both carrot and stick for Tampa, Montreal, and any current MLB city struggling to maintain themselves in their marketplace. Was it a ploy to slowly move the team from Tampa to Montreal full-time? Was it a ploy to get a higher expansion fee out of Nashville, North Carolina, San Antonio, Vegas or wherever MLB plans to go next? Was its demised announced yesterday a concession made between the league and the players association during the lockout? We may never know... 2) In Canada, never ask for government funds to build professional sports facilities. Never. Don't even think it out loud. If you do, at least half the population will be against you and if you fail people will rejoice (go see the comments under the story regarding MLB's decision in the Journal de Montréal...people are gleeful this failed and received no government funding). The best thing to do is build stadiums and arenas yourself or find private investors to do it. It doesn't matter if "that's how they do it in the States." Canadian politicians are elected by Canadian voters, so what "they do in the States" is irrelevant. Build the thing yourself, find private investors, but take it even further than that. Make a circle on a map around the stadium site with a 1-km radius. In that circle, invest in schools, colleges, universities, hospitals, community centres, libraries, parks, pools, skating rinks, CHSLDs, etc.. because you want to prove with real money that you are a good neighbour in the community. Then, turn around and say this to the city and the province: "I built the stadium, paid for the infrastructure around the stadium, invested in community institutions and facilities in a 1 km radius of that stadium. I've done what no other business that has come to Montreal and Quebec has done. In return, I don't want to be taxed for 25 years." And then die on that hill, because you did the leg work, you put your own money in, so you can tell your critics to STFU and tell the government don't tax me for 25 years. Whoever doesn't like that deal, just ask them when was the last time they dropped a billion+ in the city and stare them dead in the eyes. When you use your own money, you get the bragging rights, and you can literally tell anyone to STFU. In Canada, if you ask for government funds, the government and the half the public will tell you to STFU. 3) In a market the size of Montreal, in terms of growing a sports/entertainment brand, you need to take the time to think outside of the North American box. The Groupe baseball Montréal has Stephen Bronfman, Pierre Boivin, Alan Bouchard, Eric Boyko, Stéphane Crétier, and Mitch Garber. That's impressive, but it's not enough. A bunch of rich guys from Montreal is not enough to sway a big American sports/entertainment league like MLB. In my opinion, the group were moving about 5-8 years too fast. There's a lot of things happening in the city development wise, and in the tech sector, that's transforming Montreal every day. Montreal today, and Montreal with all the projects in proposed and going up completed, plus the REM, will be a very different city. And that future city will have a stronger economy than the one we have today. So even though the value of an MLB expansion fee or club will surely increase if Bronfman and Co. wait, they should have patiently built an international business strategy which would eventually include an MLB team when the time is right. I don't know what contacts those men have internationally, but let's say one of them, a couple of them, or a few of them, had longstanding established relationships with businesses/investors in countries outside of North America who are either already big players in sports/media/entertainment or who are interested in creating a global brand or holding company. The Montreal business people could go to their international contacts and propose the creation of a global sports and entertainment brand, which would include many assets either already owned or that could be bought, anywhere in the world: a Bollywood film studio, a German Bundesliga team, arenas in Europe, a cricket team in Australia, esports, music venues in Berlin and Madrid, a KHL team, a car racing competition in Africa, sports networks in Asia, etc... Think Anschutz Entertainment Group (AEG) or Red Bull GmbH or something global of that caliber, but with elements of the Quebec entertainment sector, including the Groupe baseball Montréal, as part of that global behemoth. Now that takes years to build, but they do it patiently as part of this larger, global vision, that includes Montreal but goes beyond Montreal. When things are right in Montreal, they go to the larger international group that they helped to create with a proposal to get a foothold in the North American sports market with an MLB team in Montreal. Their partners, co-owning all these assets globally with them, find the idea of owning something in North American irresistible, so now the whole group is in on it. Bronfman and Co. go down to New York to see MLB and present them with a plan. Now suddenly, they're not just a bunch rich dudes from Quebec anymore, they're a local ownership group that's part of a global entertainment brand, capable of paying the expansion fee, building a stadium with a retractable roof, and creating a TV deal all by themselves without breaking a sweat. And even if MLB still says no, at least Bronfman and Co are still part of a global entertainment brand which can still do many things for Montreal in terms of sports and entertainment. What I just wrote takes vision, diligence, patience, innovation, and a broad view of what is possible. Bronfman and his group should have taken a step back from the idea of MLB in Montreal, considered what type of legacy they want to build for Montreal writ-large in terms of sports/entertainment, and then network with international contacts to create a global sports/entertainment brand, and include a Montreal MLB club in that universe. Maybe a Montreal NBA team could be in that universe? Maybe some international festival yet to be created could be in that universe? Maybe selling Quebec films/TV/music beyond Quebec could be in that universe, etc... But if they don't want to go international nor don't have those sorts of global contacts...MLSE is the closest thing to AEG that we have in Canada, and they don't own an MLB team. Maybe that should be Bronfman's plan B, because at least their Canadian and you know they can never move the team to Toronto.

If this ends up being the orientation, it is fine. It is more than fine. People shouldn't worry about the skyline not being seen, because it will be seen one way or the other. Every homerun is filmed from at least 3 angles, so for those who want to see the skyline, you'll see them on replays of homeruns from left field to center. But even if you end up not seeing the skyline in those replays/highlights, you'll see it anyways. When the odd homerun ends up in Peel Basin, you'll see that on replay/highlights too. And the B reel footage — pre/post game, between innings, while the commentators are yapping on about something between pitches, between meetings on the mound, during pitching changes — will zoom in on anything that can be seen with a camera from the stadium: Habitat 67, Farine Five Roses, REM trains zipping by, cyclists along the edge of Peel basin as people in kayaks wait for homeruns, the top of Jaume Plensa's 'Source', traffic on the Bonaventure, the Jacques Cartier Bridge lit up at night, the Old Port with a cruise ship docked in the terminal, and the skyline if they choose, and more. Camerapersons find shots, and there's so much to pick up from that location. For sure the camera outside the stadium filming the approaching crowds will show the Champlain Bridge lit up. No matter what the orientation is, television viewers will see MONTRÉAL. I'm not worried about that. Plus, all these sports broadcasts now have at least one drone doing B reel, for the home team or the away broadcasts. I'm not concerned about people in Anaheim, Houston, or Seattle not seeing Montreal. They'll see it, and it won't be one-dimensional too, because all those things I just mentioned are part of the urban landscape within the view of the stadium, each at varying scales and adding different layers. Different layers, varying scales, many angles creates curiosity for the viewer, to captivate the fan inside the stadium as well as the woman in Chicago cheering for her White Sox to beat our Expos thinking "hey Montreal looks like an interesting place with a little bit of this and a little bit of that..." This stadium won't be Camden Yards with a wall at the back, and we won't be looking at public housing projects or parking lots like the New York stadiums. And sometimes when the skyline is too close to the stadium the whole scene looks like an amusement park, like the Pirates stadium in Pittsburgh. Ours will show a lot of Montreal, not too much, not too little, but just enough to be interesting. That's fine, we can live with that.

When you get closer (in real life, not looking at this picture) I like that the buildings going up in Griffintown and (eventually) in the Bassin Peel add a layer of depth to the south which already exist to the north, east, and west of downtown, but does not exist to the south. As the lands south of downtown continue to develop it will make for an even richer skyline. And if there was a way to create some sort of boardwalk along the shoreline from Nuns Island to Habitat 67 (which I seem to remember was a proposal of some type a few years ago) then that would add another layer to the foreground. It certainly will look nice in postcards, and people will sleep well at night because we'll still...see the mountain. 🤣

This was one of the best drone videos posted to this forum.

They probably said the same thing in Hong Kong. "oh no, we won't see Kowloon Bay from the mountain tops anymore with all the skyscrapers." Even if we wanted to preserve the view of the St. Lawrence River from Mount Royal, I don't see why certain blocks can't allow for buildings that are higher than the mountain. There should be at least between 1 and 3 supertalls downtown, preferably on blocks between Maestria and 1 Square Phillips. If we're going to have buildings that pass the top of Mount Royal they should be centralized in a certain part of downtown. Most of our tallest buildings seem to be forming east of PVM anyways. That should please the "we won't see the river from the mountain" people. Who cares if they don't see Île Sainte-Hélène or Notre-Dame from the Island anymore, big deal. From Mount-Royal, they can still see the Champlain Bridge, the Jacques Cartier Bridge, the historic Victoria Bridge and will still see the fireworks. Plus, on bright sunny days and clear skies, they can see the mountains in the east, and the mountains of Upstate New York and Vermont. The "we won't see the river from the mountain" people like Lambert need to chill because they will always see quite a lot from Mount Royal no matter how many skyscrapers get built.

Like many of you, I hope that they are able to bury this new portion of the REM, particularly the René-Lévesque part. If the decision is the keep it above ground, then a whole redesign of René-Lévesque would have to occur. They could reduce the roadway to two lanes in both directions and shift it to the north side, build a bike/walkway with trees in the center, and build the elevated REM structure on the south side.

A photo like this, from the MUHC to the Jacques-Cartier Bridge, ten years from now is going to make the skyline more stretched out. More Chicago-like (spread out) and less Los Angeles-like (concentrated).

If Montreal wanted to build something more substantial for cycling than Norreport Station, and do something else above ground, they could do like Strawinskylaan Bicycle Parking in Amsterdam. Bikes could be parked underground: