ville mont-royal Royalmount

[SkahHigh]

il y a 17 minutes, mark_ac a dit :

Thank you for being the voice of reason. The entitlement is insane on this board As if we should decide how a private promoters money should be spent.

Funny how you just agree to what others with the same opinion say but don't have an answer to the issues we are pointing out. And of course you misinterpret what we're saying for the sake of your argumentation.

[SkahHigh]

il y a 11 minutes, mark_ac a dit :

You know my point. Whether you agree with the project or not, this city is dying for Montreal based investors that want to spend billions in revitalizing the city.

You may disagree with the model, with their assumptions, or their market research - but the matter of fact is that this is a private project and they;re the one taking the risk. We should encourage investment in Montreal not the other way around.

Yes, it's their money, their land and they can do whatever they want with it, we can agree on that. Nobody is telling them what to do with their money, most are just pointing out that there could have been better developments on this lot. Which is true.

I'm sure they did a market research with the DIX30 and it's not doing so well 10 years later so... We'll just have to see I guess.

[Né entre les rapides]

Carbonleo a obtenu, de Ville Mont-Royal, la permission de constuire.  Ceci est acquis, et je ne le remets pas en question.

Par contre, on ne connait pas (publiquement à tout le moins) les engagements (s'ils existent)  de la Ville de Montréal et (surtout) du Ministère des Transports du Québec,  en matière d'amélioration des accès.

Il peut s'agir de travaux routiers, mais aussi d'accès à la station de métro De la Savane.  Cela soulève une question de coûts, mais également de permission.

S'agissant des coûts sus-mentionnés,  je remarquerai que, considérant l'ampleur des investissements requis pour le projet proprement dit, il ne serait pas déraisonable d'imaginer que Carbonleo  puisse offrir une participation  financière substantielle, sans que cela  ne compromette la rentabilité globale du projet. 

S'agissant de la «permission»,  l'analyse est moins directe, plus délicate: Montréal et le MTQ  doivent décider en fonction de leur appréciation des impacts, tant positifs que négatifs, que le projet pourrait avoir.

[nephersir7]

Il y a 6 heures, budgebandit a dit :

With regards to increased traffic congestion, I agree that it's probably the biggest drawback. However, it's important to keep in mind that most people don't shop between 7 am and 9 am, or 4 pm and 6 pm , Monday - Friday. The increased circulation will be mostly at night and on weekends.

That's kind of the problem I'm highlighting. Décarie and the Met are saturated from 6 to 6 on weekdays, The presence of this mall would extend this saturation well into the evening and on weekends. This is not a good thing.

Il y a 6 heures, mark_ac a dit :

but the matter of fact is that this is a private project and they;re the one taking the risk. We should encourage investment in Montreal not the other way around.

There's a gap in your logic. Increased congestion and decreased accessibility from and to the airport is not a way to encourage  productive investments in our city. 

This mall project would reinforce conditions that make investment in the Montreal area less attractive than competing cities such as Toronto. 

You should get your head out of the sand and look at the bigger picture.  

[urbanophile]

Il y a 8 heures, mark_ac a dit :

Thank you for being the voice of reason. The entitlement is insane on this board As if we should decide how a private promoters money should be spent.

This board is a forum, discussion is the essence of it, nobody is deciding how the promoter should spend is money. Anybody is entitled to have his or her opinion about it though...

[acpnc]

On parle de développer les terrains de Blue Bonnet depuis près de 50 ans. Pourtant jusqu'à ce jour rien de concret n'a été réalisé faute de liens routiers adéquats et d'infrastructures pour rendre ces espaces constructibles. Un des problèmes majeurs est justement la congestion permanente des environs et le manque de lien pour y entrer et en sortir.

En d'autres mots c'est une enclave qui pourrait accommoder plusieurs milliers de logements, mais dont le problème de transport demeure important sans un investissement considérable de la Ville et du MTQ. Alors si on ajoute un méga-centre commercial à l'équation, on augmente d'autant la problématique, car le réseau routier ne pourra pas suffire aux deux composantes qui se nuiront mutuellement.

Pour une ville le développement de logements devrait être la première priorité, puisque c'est le moteur de l'économie municipale. Avec le logement vient naturellement le commerce et les affaires qui conduisent à un développement organique qui consolide en bout de ligne l'ensemble du tissu urbain. 

Donc le choix m'apparait grandement évident: développer les terrains de Blue Bonnet doit se faire en priorité pour augmenter la population du quartier, tout en ajoutant une zone commerciale de proximité qui pourra desservir les résidents du secteur présents et futurs.

Par contre aller de l'avant avec ce méga-centre, c'est condamner le développement des immenses terrains en friche dont Blue Bonnet fait partie. En effet qui voudrait aller vivre dans un secteur neuf totalement congestionné avant même sa construction?

Quant aux milliard d'investissement promis pour des commerces destinés à la concurrence sur l'ile, il vient en opposition aux milliards autres sous forme d'habitations, de places d'affaires et de commerces de proximité dans un véritable quartier intégré et désenclavé.

J'en conclus que compte tenu de la congestion déjà présente et qui continuera à s'accroitre naturellement sans même l'arrivée du méga-centre commercial. Il devient est évident qu'on ne pourra pas avoir les deux. Construire ce centre commercial gigantesque, c'est condamner le développement résidentiel de BB à végéter encore plusieurs décennies et priver la Ville de Montréal de revenus substantiels.

C'est aussi récompenser VMR dans sa vision étroite complètement déconnectée de la réalité du secteur. Cette dernière deviendrait la seule bénéficiaire d'un investissement non essentiel, qui de surcroit en bloquera d'autres, ceux là beaucoup plus stratégiques pour l'ensemble de l'agglomération montréalaise.

[fmfranck]

 

Il y a 11 heures, mark_ac a dit :

Thank you for being the voice of reason. The entitlement is insane on this board As if we should decide how a private promoters money should be spent.

We're giving an opinion, that's all. But OF COURSE people, or the government, should verify how the private sector is acting. That is at the basis of our current system of government. What do you think taxing foreign investment in the Vancouver or Toronto market is. Or why do you think Montreal has urban planning policies? If a project is detrimental to Montréal, its normal to be against it, no matter how much is being invested. It's such an easy concept to grasp, and you have avoided talking about it for probably months now. Are you kidding me? The mental gymnastics you put yourself through are unbelievable. 

Answer me this : are you saying ALL privately funded projects are inherently good for Montréal? 

[fmfranck]

il y a 32 minutes, mark_ac a dit :

As a general rule private investments are good for Montreal. I have a lot more confidence in private for profit projects than public with limited accountability type projects. A private project that tries to transform an otherwise dormant and decrepit part of the city is good for the city - and good for job/wealth creation. 

I also think having opinions are good. I'm asking opinion makers to put themselves in the shoes of a company looking to invest OVER A BILLION dollar of their own money into a project. That is not something that is every taken lightly or done without significant market research behind them.  Nobody likes to lose money.

Im not saying that Carbonlea would lose money, i'm talking about the benefit of this project for Montréal. If a project is detrimental to Montréal it's a bad project, wether its privately or publicly funded.  I think we can all agree on that. I feel that the critics of this projects are pretty easy to understand and make valid points. Its telling that the people in favour of this project have no arguments whatsoever besides repeating ad vitam eternam that its a privately funded project and we should just accept it. 
 

[Né entre les rapides]

il y a 33 minutes, mark_ac a dit :

As a general rule private investments are good for Montreal. I have a lot more confidence in private for profit projects than public with limited accountability type projects. A private project that tries to transform an otherwise dormant and decrepit part of the city is good for the city - and good for job/wealth creation. 

I also think having opinions are good. I'm asking opinion makers to put themselves in the shoes of a company looking to invest OVER A BILLION dollar of their own money into a project. That is not something that is every taken lightly or done without significant market research behind them.  Nobody likes to lose money.

I suppose you are well familiar with the concept of externality.  May I suggest that you include it  in your analysis.

In the particular case of this project, you might still come up with a postive verdict.  But it would have the  merits of having been  assessed from the perspective of the common good,  not merely the profitability of a private investment. 

[YUL]

2 hours ago, fmfranck said:

are you saying ALL privately funded projects are inherently good for Montréal? 

Exactly.

We may have a private investment profitable by itself, but that’s causing an even bigger harm to the collectivity. It has to be professionally assessed

Such new retail space WILL necessarily cannibalize other existing retail space, including proximity retail.  

What’s the overall value added of additional retail space for the greeter Montréal area? Or to this particular area?

Now, what will be the effect on the strategic east-west mobility? Permanent traffic jams now from 6 am to 10 pm? (Agree, that's Transport Quebec fault which never corrected the east-west mobility anomaly) 

I fully respect and understand the promoter for wanting to develop the area. They were clever in acquiring the area for cheap and then creating a land assembly to dream of.  Their project is really “estheticaly”  attractive and a HUGE improvement to the current state.  And for sure it will attract customers due to its superb location.

But still, collectively, we would probably lose more than we would win.

I’ll leave it to more competent people to properly make this assessment.  

 

Modifié 13 octobre 2017 par YUL