Cataclaw

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Whoa. Relax dude. Last I checked, forums were for discussing. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. If you're going to disagree with my opinion, have at it, but provide your own arguments and make your own case. Otherwise, being an armchair critic with no substantive arguments is a waste of everyone's time. Furthermore, you're missing the point of my argument entirely. I'm not advocating any street closures necessarily. What I'm saying is that it's possible, and that the resistance to changing an inch of our public streets, even just temporarily and over a meager 250m distance, is indiciative of a dated 1950s auto-centric mentality. And by the way, I wouldn't be surprised if the idea is in fact adopted in the next 10 years, once the remaining vacant lots are filled up. Feel free to contact me and claim your "I told you so" prize at that time ;)

Si on est capable de s'ajuster quand il y a de la construction, on serait certainement capable de s'ajuster pour une fermeture temporaire de René-Lévesque sur 250m, les soirs, pour à peine quelques jours. Vous essayez de me faire croire que ça serait l'apocalypse, mais franchement, je trouve ça ridicule comme argument. Jeanne-Mance et Saint-Urbain peuvent rester ouvert, la ville n'a qu'à rendre Jeanne-Manche bidirectionnelle entre René-Lévesque et Viger. Quelques cônes, quelques panneaux, et c'est fait. Les rues forment un espace publique qu'on peut manipuler et faire ce qu'on veut avec. Ce n'est parce que Google Maps me dit que Jeanne-Mance doit aller dans un sens que c'est coulé dans le béton. La ville a le pouvoir de changer ça pour une semaine. À go, tout le monde... respirez!!!

Yeah, so what? I didn't say Jeanne-Mance needs to be closed. And even if you did want to close a larger stretch of René-Lévesque, you would just need to time the events on that stage to occur in the evening, and then close the perpendicular streets such as Jeanne-Mance for a few hours during those shows. Delivery trucks could make their runs during the day just fine. It's really not a big deal. The world will keep spinning if 300 meters of René-Lévesque is closed for a few days out of the year.

The underground parking entrance is on Saint-Urbain, which is already kept open and would still be kept open. The R-L closure I propose starts at Saint-Urbain (exclusive) so folks will still be able to use the underground parking. My gosh, so much shock and horror over the prospect of closing 1 block-length of René-Lévesque. How ever will our society survive? This is clearly the end times.

Premièrement, dans le scénario que je propose, René-Lévesque serait seulement fermé sur une distance de 250 mètres. Deuxièmement, Il y a des villes en Europe qui ont fermé leur centre-ville au complet et pourtant tout fonctionne. Même que les commerces vont mieux. Bon, évidement je ne propose pas de faire la même chose à Montréal car notre ville n'est pas tout à fait conçu de la même façon. Cependant, on peut facilement fermer 300m de René-Lévesque sans que ce soit l'apocalypse. Les gens s'ajusteront. Il y a quelques années, on pensait que fermer Sainte-Catherine l'été serait catastrophique. Aujourd'hui, on découvre que ça fonctionne. Il faudrait penser éventuellement rendre toutes les rues du centre-ville bidirectionnelles. C'est mieux pour l'accessibilité, c'est mieux en termes d'urbanisme, c'est mieux pour la sécurité au niveau de la rue, etc. Les rues à sens unique, c'est une vielle stratégie des années 50 qui sert principalement a faciliter les déplacements en automobile aux dépens de tout le reste. Aujourd'hui, les priorités ont changé et il serait temps de revoir nos rues. Il y a beaucoup de villes qui ont commencé ça, et éventuellement Montréal va suivre. Sainte-Catherine et de Maisonneuve seront un jour des rues à deux sens.

Il y a de l'espace, il suffit de l'exploiter. Pourquoi le boul. René-Lévesque n'est pas fermé durant le festival pour y implanter une scène ou 3? Incluant les trottoirs et le terre-plein, le boul. René-Lévesque est presque aussi large que la place des festivals, mais avec l'avantage d'être nettement plus long.

Je trouve que la trame urbaine est déjà trop fracturée sur Sainte-Catherine. Ces petits édifices contribuent au "street enclosure". Il y a suffisaments d'espaces publiques dans le secteur. Ce qu'il manque maintenant, c'est des édifices pour venir "fermer" la place. Une place publique dans une ville doit absolument être bordée d'édifices. Les stationnements et les terrains vacants gâchent l'effet. La rue Balmorale aurait du être éliminée complètement pour permettre la place des festivals de prendre tout l'espace. Idem pour la rue Jeanne-Mance. L'ave du Prés Kennedy et le boul. de Maisonneuve auraient du être fusionnés entre Saint-Urbain et Jeanne-Mance. Se sont des petites gaffes, mais en gros le secteur est une réussite!

Gbx, Est-ce que ça te dérange si je répond en anglais? Le clavier de mon portable est incapable de produire des accents sans que je fasse "alt 0223" pour un accent grave, etc. D'habitude j'écris en français sur mon ordinateur maison, mais là c'est trop fatiguant!! Ok. Regarding traffic equillibrium. Yes, arterial roads tend to soak up demand no matter what we do. However, you are correct, there are very real advantages to building roads. They do create jobs. They do stimulate development. They do stimulate the economy. Road construction creates positive externalities. Now.. the problem is, roads also create serious negative externalities. The consensus among experts today is that in many cases, new roads and highways generate more negative externalities than positive ones. For example, roads are expensive to maintain and must be repaved constantly. Snow must also be removed in the winter. Roads induce suburban sprawl which is extremely inefficient for many reasons. In Quebec, on average, a housing development for 5000 people at 40 units/hectare will cost 100$million less to build and maintain than a development at 20 units/hectare. This is because infrastructure like sewers will service fewer people per kilometer, even though they are structurally able to handle larger loads. Roads induce car travel which increases atmospheric emissions as well as noise pollution. Automobile infrastructure is also land-intensive, requiring a lot of space to build highway interchanges. This is land that is not available for development, and therefore not taxable. There are literally hundreds of negative externalities, and these are just a couple that come to mind. If you'd like, I could dig up some resources and give you a more comprehensive list. So: traffic tends to reach an equillibrium and congestion is unavoidable. Highway and road construction does provide some economic benefits, but those benefits are outweighed by the tremendous environmental, social and economic costs. As for transit, it is dollar-for-dollar superior for many reasons. I listed just 1: being more labor-intensive during construction. You're correct in pointing out how that applies only during construction. But it doesn't just stop there. Transit is more spatially efficient, being able to transport more people in less space. It's more energy efficient. It generates less pollution. And it has the ability to attract dense development in a way that highways simply cannot. En français, on dit souvent que le TEC a le potentiel d'être "structurant", dans le contexte du "transit-oriented development". En ce qui concerne le futur du TEC, ne soit pas si pessimiste. Good things are coming In 2008, during the height of the financial meltdown, the price of oil soared to record highs. Studies were done on the impacts of high gasoline prices. It turns out between 2008-2010, in many cities across the U.S.A., a sharp reversal occured. The suburbs began to lose population, people began to drive less, and transit usage increased! The same is true for Montreal. Every 5 years, we perform a very detailed study called the Montreal OD Survey (Enquête sur les origines et destinations). What the data from this expensive and time consuming study shows is that Montreal is beginning to experience a decline in the growth of automobile ownership, usage and kilometers travelled. Meanwhile, transit usage is growing rapidly. People's habits can change, and the price of gas is more elastic than you think. The elasticity of gas is directly related to the avaialbility of alternative modes of transportation. That's why, if we want to increase our quality of life and build a sustainable future, we have to start building transit TODAY! We can't expand the metro 20 years from now. We have to start doing it immediately. In the next 10-15 years, you will see suburban sprawl slowly grind to a stop. It's already slowed down dramatically. We tend to forget how fast the sprawl was growing just 20 years ago. It's gone down a lot since then. Development will be almost entirely in-fill of medium to high density. The main thing you will see in the next 10-15 years is the "urbanization of the suburbs". Longueuil and Laval are already experiencing this. My street in Longueuil used to be lined with 1-floor single-family detached homes. Over the course of 30 years, as the houses burned down or were bought up and demolished, they were replaced with progressively denser constructions. 1-floor single-family homes were replaced by 3-floor 6-unit apartment buildings. Semi-detached homes were replaced with 4-floor condos. Today, my street has twice as many units as it did just a few decades ago. We see in-fill all over the place in Longueuil and Laval, and even some Transit-oriented development in a few places. Metro Longueuil is a good example. So don't be too pessimistic. Things are changing, and not just in Montreal. With very few exceptions, around the world the trend is densification and transit development. We don't have a choice. If we want to sustain our economic growth, we have to continue these trends. It's not optional anymore. Our economy, our environment and our society depend on it.

D'accord avec toi, Né entre les rapides. Il faut revoir la stratégie de stationnement. En ce qui concerne les déplacements, les destinations ne sont pas tous le centre-ville. Je n'ai pas les chiffres, mais je suis certain qu'un grand nombre de déplacements passent par l'ile pour se rendre à Longueuil/la rive sud... surtout dans l'axe de la 25. C'est possible de partir de Laval, traverser Montréal et se rendre à Longueuil en 10 minutes. Il a certainement des destinations à Saint-Laurent, Anjou, etc.

Le Chemin de Chambly en chantier! Cette rue importante se prépare a recevoir sa toute première piste cyclable entre Vauquelin et le boul. Jacques-Cartier. Les voies véhiculaires seront rétrécies (de 4.1m à 3.4m en moyenne) pour permettre l'implantation de la piste de 3m. Les trottoirs seront élargis à 1.5m également. L'ouverture est prévue cet automne!

The changes in traffic flow occured across a large portion of the network. So yes, you're absolutely correct abtu the Pie-IX bridge. Some new trips are being made exclusively by residents that live close to the A25 bridge, but the majority of those trips are undoubtedly coming from users of the former bridges, who then switched over to the A25. So to be clear, yes most of the A25 crowd came from other bridges. In doing so, however, they freed up a lot of volume on the other bridges, which was then quickly absorbed by other folks. It's easy to think of urban highways and bridges as gas in a balloon. It fills up to occupy to space you give it. As for your second point, a certain percentage will always opt to take their car whenever possible. These are the people who just love their cars, as you put it. Even if you provide a high speed train, they wouldn't take it. I don't have the OD survey in front of me, but in Montreal in 2008 I believe the number was around 20%. Then there's another 20% or so that don't drive, refuse to drive, and wouldn't drive even if you made it convenient to drive. These are the folks who will walk, cycle and take transit no matter what. A large majority of users, ~50-60%, will take the mode of transportation that simply: a) costs less, b) takes less time and c) is most convenient. So the 20% die hard car people and the 20% die hard transit people are not worth trying to "lure". But the 50-60% mass is. Who cares if 20% still cling to their cars. That's their right as free citizens. But we can and should try to improve transit and make it attractive, fast and desirable so that most people feel compelled to use it. In the U.S. the numbers are a bit different and slightly more skewed towards cars, but not by a lot. People do have a natural preference for cars, and in transportation modelling we usually apply "bonus coefficients" when dealing with utility functions that determine people's mode choice. If transit is strong, people will take it. People love their cars, but studies show that they also love good fast efficient transit too, and they will take it. But anyway, gasoline will be 1.80$/L+ in the next 5 years, so change is going to have to happen one way or another.

Ce ne sont pas 40000 résidents qui viennent de déménager à Laval soudainement. Chaque vpd = 1 véhicle per day. Un déplacement qui s'est fait à travers le pont. Ce ne sont pas 40 000 nouveaux chars de vendus... Va lire mon post un peu plus haut. J'ai tout expliqué ça en détail. Le 40 000 net à travers la somme des ponts Laval-Mtl ne vient pas de nouveaux résidents uniquement. C'est presque entièrement des gens qui font des déplacements qu'ils ne choisaient pas de faire avant, et des gens qui changent leurs destinations.

En fait, même pas. Selon le MTQ, le niveau de congestion n'a pas baissé sur les autres autoroutes menant à Laval. Pour les 3 raisons que je viens d'expliquer, les 40 000 nouveaux déplacements sont en grande partie des ajouts.

Ils n'ont peut-être pas terminé les travaux encore? C'est beau, ce qu'il y a là à date, mais il y a surement d'autres lumières a installer... je ne peux pas croire que c'est fini...

Sure thing peekay. In all sincerity, I understand your skepticism. I was highly skeptic about induced demand at first too... it seems incredibly counter-intuitive at first. It's only when I took a course in transportation modelling, started looking at examples around the world and crunching some numbers myself that I realized how powerful this often misunderstood phenomenon is. According to Concession A25, the A-25 bridge has exceeded its average projections and is now topping 40,000 vpd on some days, and it's rising. New transponders are flying off the shelves like hot cakes. "Le dernier, explique-t-il à La Presse, a été enregistré la veille, 17 mai: 40 894 automobilistes ont passé le pont. Source: http://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/regional/montreal/201205/23/01-4527793-pont-de-la25-un-anniversaire-un-record-un-recours.php Before I get into this, let me define "trip". In transportation science, a "trip" is not grabbing your car keys and going to Quebec City for the weekend. A trip is more basic than that, and is simply defined as transportation from an origin to a destination. If I leave my home and go to work, that's a trip. If I walk to the depanneur, that's a trip. Changes to a network can affect traffic volume in a number of ways. When a new link is created, several things happen: 1. People that would have previously foregone trips are now choosing to make those trips. Example: It's saturday night, there is no nightlife in my area, I feel like grabbing a beer somewhere with some friends, but there's too much traffic congestion and I don't feel like negotiating all that, so I'll just stay home or go watch the game at a friend's place nearby. However, now that a fast and efficient road allows me to go to where the the bars and clubs are, I'll choose to go out instead of stay home. I'm generating a new trip that would have otherwise not been made, and I'm doing this solely on the premise that a deterrent (congestion) is now removed from my utility function. Obviously, some people will still go out anyway, even if there is congestion, and some people will choose to stay home, no matter how efficient the roads are. But a certain percentage of users, who were "on the fence", will now start to make those trips. 2. Destinations will be change. Example: Suppose there's a local cinema I go to because it's close to me. There's a much nicer cinema with better selection but it's 30 minutes away. Adding a lane to the highway that takes me there allows the travel time to be reduced to 15 minutes. I'll now be tempted to go to that cinema instead of the local one. So I'll drive farther to go to the fancy cinema, but in doing so I'll contribute to the increase in volume along that highway. 3. Development will be spurred. New housing, offices and industries tends to pop up along highways, especially at exits and interchanges. Here is a classic example in the Montreal area: http://goo.gl/maps/0h0nb It doesn't take much to see how highways have shaped sprawl across the Montreal CMA. When new development appears along a highway, new trips will be generated. Buyers and developpers tend to make decisions based on induction and inference, and they rarely stop to consider future prospects for a transportation network. Here's an example: Imagine two new lanes are added to a highway passing through a undevelopped stretch of land within an urban agglomeration. Let's even throw in a new exit or two for good measure. Developpers will be attracted to the land because it will provide their customers with quick and easy access to the highway network. Today, we know that performance increases along urban highways tend to last for 5 years maximum, on average. So for those 5 years following a highway widening, performance will be fast, and new houses will be built. Folks will buy up those houses and start living there. Development will occur for as long as performance of the road network is adequate. Here's the problem though. Let's say the highway widening added 20,000 vpd of capacity, and let's say 8,000 new residents move into the area over those 5 years. According to the 2008 Montreal OD Survey, on average those category of residents will use the highway on average several times per day, but let's be generous and assume only 2 trips will be made per person. That's 16,000 vpd of new usage -- from the new sprawl alone. Now when you consider the other factors I mentioned, plus toss in the other land uses, like commerical (say, a new Dix30-style mall) and industrial (some development lining the highway, as we so often see) our timid 16,000 vpd estimate easily ramps up to 40,000 vpd and beyond. What you end up with is even more congestion than you initially had, because people were "fooled" into thinking the new and improved highway would last like that forever. In reality, it's gone in 5 years or less. In the early years, many deniers tried to pick apart research findings and look for mistakes. Even today, many deniers will often cite the UC Berkeley study from 1973-1990 which found that a 1% increase in capacity was met with a 0.9% increase in volume in under 5 years. They claim that the study didn't use enough data and therefore it's all wrong. Deniers often act like this is the only study we've ever done. The problem is, hundreds of new studies have been performed since then, with extremely reliable data using advanced techniques and the most cutting-edge computer software. With every passing year, the already-enormous mountain of evidence grows further still. To deny induced demand today, with everything that we've learned, is like denying that humans ever set foot on the moon. You're absolutely right in thinking it'll be 10% or less. Honestly, the figure will probably be somewhere around 1-4%. I threw around an extremely generous 10-20% hypothetical to show that even if we condeded such a large reduction, it still wouldn't matter. And yes, you're correct in stating that many things can and will affect transportation models. Classic road engineers, such as the ones we have at the MTQ, tend to look at very static models that don't take much into account. It's been like this for decades. Urban transportation experts have been leading the revolution with integrated approaches that DO take into consideration all the factors you just listed, and many more. The reason why most projections are poorly done and are way off the mark is because it takes an incredible amount of time and money to produce accurate figures. You need to do precise traffic enumeration, you need rich disaggregate data (such as the data found in the Montreal OD Survey), you need good utility functions, you need all the socioeconomic data and trend forecasting info you can get your hands on, and that's just the tip of the iceberg. You have to create a statistically reliable model that correctly balances all these variables. It is a mountain of work, let me tell you. Traffic engineers operating on a meager budget can't and won't do all that. Often their numbers are merely linear extrapolations, concocted in less than a day. I'm not joking. In the end, even the most precise models crafted by teams of urban transportation experts over the course of 5 years with budgets of millions of dollars... won't be 100% accurate. You can never be 100% accurate. But I can guarantee you those models and projections are more accurate than the crap we get from the MTQ. The moral of the story here is that everything we've learned over the last 60 years points to one conclusion: You can't build your way out of congestion, and even if you could, the side-effects would significantly outweigh any of the benefits. It's like trying to fight an ant infestation in your kitchen by leaving a bunch of food in your living room in the hopes of luring them away. In the end, you'll just end up with ants in your kitchen AND your living room. It's pointless. The only viable solution is to densify, invest in transit, and reduce our automobile dependence. I'm not saying tear down all the highways (although some of them will need to go, eventually) all I'm saying is stop aggravating the problem by building new ones. We need some cars and some amount of road infrastructure, but we're way passed just "some". We're in "way too much" territory.. The balance is tiltd 80-20 in the wrong direction, and we have a lot of work to do to try and bring it back to a sensible, sustainable equillibrium. The amazing thing is, we could stand to significantly bolster our economy too. On average, every dollar of transit spending more than doubles the economic output of a dollar spent on roads. Every dollar of transit spending generates more jobs too, because transit improvements are more labor-intensive (whereas road improvements are more material intensive.) This means more dollars in people's pockets, which means more spending and a stronger economy. Highways cost a lot to repair and maintain, and they generate sprawl which is highly inefficient and wasteful infrastructure-wise. The list goes on and on... The evidence points to an undeniably resounding conclusion: our society is too auto-centric and auto-dependent, and we could stand to gain tremendously by moving towards a healthier transportation mix. Unfortunately, car culture is so ingrained in our brains that we get defensive whenever somebody takes up an inch away from cars. From the time we're infants, playing with toy cars, to the the time we're 16 and told that getting a car is a rite of passage, to all the cars we see on TV, in movies and song lyrics... we're just inundated with cars. It's easy to see why people get defensive and irrational. It's one hell of an uphill battle, let me tell you... but we'll get there. Change has already begun, and it will only accelerate.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is the mindset of the MTQ and some of our municipal leaders. If the MTQ didn't have its head stuck up its ass, and if our transit authorities weren't fragmented into 5 bickering factions, we might have gotten a transit connection along this corridor linking this part of the west island to downtown. But these people are so far off course that it's a minor miracle they decided not to build the full fledged highway as originally planned. Here is the comment I posted in reply to the article: I like how they refer to this as "the only way" to alleviate congestion. No, it's not. You can improve bus service. You can create light rail and expand commuter rail. You can create more bike paths. You can densify neighborhoods and focus on transit-oriented development. We've had 60+ years to study cars, roads and congestion. What we've learned is astonishingly simple: the more capacity you add and the easier you make it to drive, the more demand you induce and the more vehicle trips you generate. Traffic will be alleviated for a year or two, but ultimately the 440 urban boulevard will end up clogged too. This is what happens when you have a MTQ that spends 85% of its money on roads and only 15% on transit, even though transit 1. generates more jobs per dollar, 2. generates more economic returns per dollar, 3. has a stronger impact on congestion, 4. is far more sustainable, 5. is far more conducive to urban development and 6. saves us millions in maintenance costs. At a time when cities around the world are pursuing sustainable development, building transit and densifying because it's economically, socially and environmentally advantageous, here we are on the West Island going in the opposite direction. NO to the 440 boulevard. Enough of this asinine 1950s-era vision. This is 2012, let's get with the program.

What's going on with the northern tip of the building? It doesn't reflect the renderings nor the floor plans on the official web site.

Je crois qu'il pourrait y avoir un léger ralentissement dans le futur, mais nous aurons plus jamais d'époque de zéro construction comme on l'a déjà connu. Il y a des gros facteurs qui viennent changer la dynamique du marché immobilier. La densificiation, le TOD, le transport collectif, le PMAD et les restrictions sur l'étalement urbain, l'augmentation du prix à la pompe et une réduction de la part de l'automobile ne sont que quelques facteurs qui viennent changer tout. La densité, c'est le futur, et le blitz de projects va continuer.

40 étages résidentiels, ça peut être flush 120m.

Le "stock" du Solano vient de grimper C'est très beau, merci pour les photos!

L'affiche la plus photographiée de Montréal! Merci pour les photos

D'accord! Comme je te dis, il faut faire attention avec les prévisions de circulation fait par des firmes reliés à la construction d'autoroutes.. dans le domaine des transports et de l'urbanisme, c'est un genre de "running gag" que ces prévisions là toujours horribles et peu précises. Je vais te sortir quelques liens d'intérêt pour toi ce soir quand j'aurais une chance.

Oui, et justement j'appuis la tarification ajustable. C'est un outil puissant. Idéalement, le réseau autoroutier devrait être entièrement à péage avec un système similaire. En ce qui concerne les prévisions du consortium, c'est très courant de sous-estimer la congestion car les ingénieurs ne prennent pas la demande induite en considération. La demande induite vient toucher l'urbanisme et le développement et ce n'est simplement pas dans leur domaine. Justement, je suis urbaniste et je spécialise dans le domaine des transports avec un intérêt particulier en modélisation. 90% du temps, les firmes utilisent l'approche "classique" qui date des années 1940. La nouvelle approche intégrée prônée par les urbanistes depuis 10-20 ans prend en considération une multitude de facteurs que les ingénieurs ignorent souvent, et les résultats sont impressionants. Bref, oui les prévisions de l'A-30 sont naives. Vous serez surpris à quel point c'est souvent mal fait. Les consortiums d'autoroutes ne veulent rien savoir de l'urbanisme. Ils veulent juste construire leurs autoroutes et ils trouvent le moyen de produire des chiffres pour justifier leurs projets. C'est ça la business. Si tu veux en savoir plus, j'ai écris un long message à propos de ce sujet avec des graphiques et tout. C'est dans le fil du Nouveau Pont Champlain.

Gilbert: D'accord avec toi. J'aime les gratte-ciels, mais lorsqu'on pense au design d'une ville, ce n'est pas ça qui compte le plus. En ordre d'importance, selon moi: #1) Intégration au niveau de la rue. Est-ce qu'il y a des trottoirs larges et adéquats? Est-ce qu'il y a des espaces pour piétons? Est-ce que les façades sont dotées de commerces/autres activités au niveau de la rue? Est-ce que la fenestration est généreuse? (Les murs aveugles et sans intérêt, c'est le pire..) Est-ce qu'il y a des arbres? Des places pour s'asseoir? Est-ce que c'est sécuritaire? Etc. #2) Densité et usages: Idéalement, c'est l'usage mixte. Ce n'est pas toujours réalisable, mais le plus possible, opter pour un choix qui concorde aux besoins du secteur. Une densité de 3 FAR (floor-area ratio) c'est le minimum. Pour du résidentiel, 50 unités/hectare minimum, idéalement plus selon le secteur et les caracteristiques. #3) Accessibilité: Est-ce que je dois traverser 10 voies d'auto pour me rendre à l'édifice? Ou est-ce que je peux me sortir du métro et je suis là? Est-ce qu'il y a un stationnement pour vélos? Quel est l'état des infrastructures? Il y a quoi comme activités aux alentours? Etc. #4) Qualité de la construction: Est-ce que l'immeuble est durable? Est-ce qu'il y a une certification LEED? Est-ce que l'édifice remplace un terrain de stationnement sans offrir des cases souterraines? Ou est-ce qu'il y a des espaces pour stationner? (Faut faire attention avec ça, car augmenter la densité peut quand même augmenter la dépendence automobile si on ne s'attaque pas au problème de stationnement. Il faut couper dans les places pour stationner, et augmenter les frais de les cases restantes) #5) Hauteur/design/architecture: Est-ce que l'immeuble fait vomir? Est-ce que l'hauteur est bonne selon le contexte? En ce qui concerne ce projet, j'ai bien peur que les notes ressemblent à: 1) C-, 2) A-, 3) B-, 4) B, 5) C. Bref, c'est vraiment le niveau de la rue qui me préoccupe le plus. J'aimerais voir un rendu plus détaillé avant de juger d'avantage...

C'est bien à date! Merci Gilbert! Il y a juste l'intégration au niveau de la rue m'inquiète..