Cataclaw

J'aime bien lire les différents points de vue qui sont exprimés sur ce forum. Ça devrait être plus haut, moins haut, plus dense, moins dense. Avec des arguments qui soutiennent les points de vue. Comme ça, ça va.

 

Mais je n'aime pas les attaques personnelles contre des personnes engagées, bénévoles, qui se donnent la peine de préparer des mémoires et qui les exposent lors de séances de consultation publique. Lorsqu'on veut exprimer un point de vue particulier, on fait comme eux : on prépare un mémoire et on va le présenter. Insulter les gens qui le font, c'est de l'intimidation, c'est une attaque à la liberté d'expression et à la démocratie. De plus, attaquer des gens qui ne font même pas partie du forum, c'est cheap.

 

Si vous avez des choses à dire lors d'une consultation publique, faites-vous entendre et soumettez un mémoire. Mais, de grâce, n'essayez pas de museler ceux qui le font.

 

Pylône

Pylône: oui et non.. tu as raison et tu n'as pas raison.

Je présume que tu parles des remarques qui ont été fait au sujet de Dinu Bumbaru par MtlMan et d'autres? Si oui, et bien je regrette mais critiquer et attaquer M. Bumbaru, c'est du fair game. Il est quelqu'un de connu, célèbre et manifestement "publique".

Malgré ça, je te l'accorde : ce n'est pas necessaire d'insulter sa personne directement. Soyons sévères envers ses positions parfois absurdes, mais ne le soyons pas envers lui même en tant qu'individu. Alors, nuance... je trouve que Dinu Bumbaru a des opinions carrément "stupides" mais je ne pense pas qu'il est "stupide" en tant que tel. C'est quand même un homme intélligent, même si ça arrive qu'il propose des choses (qui sont, à mon avis) illogiques.

Pour un développement peu dense de type banlieue, ce n'est quand même pas si mal.

-La densité est pas si mal

-Il y a des trottoirs et aménagements pour les cyclistes et piétons

-Il y a des commerces et des services aux alentours

Although it's still heavily car dependent and faced with some design problems, as far as sprawl goes, this isn't too bad. If all new suburban development in Montreal could look like this, it would be a huge step in the right direction!

À mon avis, la variation des hauteurs a peu d'importance dans ce cas ci. C'est ce qui se passe au niveau de la rue qui compte le plus.

Heureusement, ce projet est très prometteur à ce niveau!

Que les tours soient 20-20-20-20 étages versus 16-18-22-24 étages, ça vraiment peu d'importance. Ce n'est pas la vue de haut qui compte. Si c'était le cas, Brasilia serait la plus belle ville au monde

Wow, bonne nouvelle! Merci pour le scoop

Thanks JCC! I'll be sure to have a look, sounds interesting.

This needs to be discussed over beers. Cheers!

Sure, anytime! I love discussing this stuff We'll do another mtlurb meet in spring!

"Because it hinders interdisciplinary mixing and economic spillover effects and other linkages. Reduces transmission of tacit knowledge."

 

Dude. Wtf? Sorry I'm with Malek on this one. Half your post is incomprehensible the other can be debated to death. I have a hard time seeing how a shopping mall can succeed in that area but again who are you to tell private enterprise they can't build. If zoning allows it, the municipality agrees to it ... then get out of the way.

I'm sorry that my post is incomprehensible to you. I'm sure if you google up economic spillover effects, linkages, tacit knowledge and interdisciplinary mixing, you'll find out what all of these things mean.

As for why we shouldn't let private enterprise build -- I never said that. I want private enterprise to build, but I don't want them to do it any way they want, lest they cause more harm than good.

According to your logic, why not have any zoning then? Hey private enterprise wants to build a coal-fired power plant next to a quiet residential area, why not, right?

Zoning exists because the actions of private enterprise can affect an entire community, indeed an entire metropolitan area. That's why we zone.. so we don't end up with slaughterhouses and oil refineries next to playgrounds and schools. It's the same thing here. A new super mega mall would have serious consequences which I explained in detail above. It's the same thing.

You can disagree if you wish, I respect your right to do so. However, my arguments represent the professional consensus among the tens of thousands of experts who have studied these issues all their lives. There are facts, studies and figures to support these claims, and if you do just a little bit of research, you'll find a mountain of it.

Many suburbanites feel like an attack on the suburbs is an attack on them and on their own way of life. It isn't. Stop taking this personally, guys! You can live however you want, but if you choose a settlement type that deals more damage to society, don't be surprised if society increasingly passes on the externalized costs to the consumer, aka the individual choosing to live in a single-family home with 5 cars.

It's like smoking. You can smoke if you want, it's your right, but smoking also causes disease and reduces overall health, which means more strain on the health care system. This is an externalized cost. The government tries to recoup these costs by placing high taxes on cigarettes themselves. So yeah, you can smoke, that's totally fine, no disrespect here, but understand that your action costs more to society so society asks you to pay more with taxes on cigarettes. Same thing with suburbs. Live there if you want, but society might collect more from you to compensate for the externalities of that choice. Increasingly, around the world, this is the trend we're seeing.

You post all this crap, but you still can't explain why Montreal as a denser city costs more to operate on a per capita basis than any of its suburban neighbours.

Actually that's not true. When you factor in all the implicit externalities, including some that I alluded to, cities are cheaper and more efficient.

Even if it weren't the case, even if cities were more expensive, hell even if they were twice as expensive, i'd still be the right thing to do.

Malek: my arguments are all factually based and supported by research, studies, science and facts. Calling them "crap" just because you don't like what they say simply doesn't cut it.

Suburban sprawl driven by automobile dependency is wasteful, inefficient and not environmentally, socially or economically sustainable. And that's a fact. Listen man, If there were a way to create lovely single family housing with none of the serious problems that I just mentioned above, i'd be all for it. Unfortunately, that isn't the case.

How can you just deny that sprawl destroys forests and consumes prime agricultural land? How can you just deny that cars pollute heavily (and a heck of a lot more than a pedestrian)? Can you honestly sit here with a straight face and tell me that these things are somehow false? When a new subdivision is built over acres of forest and ecologically sensitive habitats, what do you say to that? Tough luck?

C'mon, man!

sigh.... qui es tu pour dire à des entreprises et des individues que ils ne doivent pas faire ça?

Because it pollutes more

Because it destroys prime agricultural land

Because it clear-cuts forests

Because it relies on automobiles for transportation, burning more fossil fuels, polluting more, creating dependency on oil, etc.

Because it leads to a land-use pattern that segregates functions and reduces social capital

Because it leads to wasted economic potential

Because it leads to higher infrastructure maintenance costs

Because it leads to less taxable revenue per capita and foregone revenue (parking lots and highway medians tend to not collect very much in terms of revenue.)

Because it leads to lower density which is inherently incapable of properly supporting transit alternatives

Because it expands social inequity

Because it costs more to build infrastructure too (a sewer that services 10 households could service 100 in a higher density neighborhood for the same construction costs)

Because it wastes money in a million ways, like attracting homogeneous families to a new subdivision, stimulating demand for a new school, and then forcing the school to shut down when the kids all grow up at the same time.

Because it forces people who can't drive to be reliant on others who can't (kids, teens, seniors). Two generations ago, most kids walked to school. Today, most kids are driven to school by their parents.

Because it increases transportation costs, overall, per capita

Because it fragments and disrupts natural habitats and other systems

Because it hinders interdisciplinary mixing and economic spillover effects and other linkages. Reduces transmission of tacit knowledge.

Because it reduces the potential for urban adaptation

Because it encourages people to walk less and get less exercise, contributing to reduced overall health at the expense of our health care system, that we must pay for.

Because it forces many teens into involuntary isolation, where they can only interact with their friends if their parents drive them around. Studies have found a relationship between suburban living and rising rates of depression and suicide.

Because it's economically, socially and environmentally unsustainable

That's why.

We live in a collective society, and the actions of individuals impact us all.

That's why I have a right and indeed an obligation to care about what others in our collective society are doing.

(Nothing personal Malek, I've got nothing but respect for you my man, but you've got to stop denying that suburban sprawl is a factually inferior settlement pattern. I'm not saying you can't live in a nice suburban home and enjoy a peaceful life, i'm just saying that you shouldn't be surprised if in the future, society places higher taxes and costs on that form of settlement, since it's now proven to carry far greater economic, social and environmental costs.)

Laval a demandé quelque chose comme 1000 hectares pour développer, et seulement 100 hectares ont été approuvés. Ca vient quand même freiner le développement non-durable.

Je ne suis pas inquiet pour Laval. Ils vont densifier, c'est tout. Ils n'auront pas le choix. En fait, ils le font déjà, dans leur futur centre-ville en construction et autour du metro Montmorency! Le projet de 900 unités que Malek vient de poster en est la preuve.

Ok donc on doit obligatoirement ouvrir tous les magasins entre ste-catherine et sherbrooke?

 

Et tout le monde doit se tapper les distances pour aller magasiner ... c'est ça qui est catastrophique!

Straw man argument, dude.

Je n'ai jamais dis ça. L'étalement urbain qui est déjà là.... est déjà là. Ces banlieusards ont déjà des centres d'achat qu'ils peuvent utiliser. Ce n'est pas necessaire d'en construire des autres et empirer la situation.

Suburban folks can use the mega-malls they already have. Making more malls will only induce more sprawl.

Ca serait catastrophique de construire un méga centre d'achat à Mirabel.

Bordel, on veut freiner l'étalement urbain, pas l'encourager!

Nice! Une victoire de plus contre l'étalement urbain!

Nicely done, GDS

No JCC, i'm saying If i were mayor, I would fight to have the zoning and the rules changed.

I wouldn't do it after the fact, although in this particular case I would deny the authorization to build on the grounds that the project does not respect the minimum height requirements.

Somebody left an excellent reply on the comments section of the article:

"As usual you target projects simply because they are tall. Your mentality and those like you (Heritage Montreal) are what have stagnated this city. The tower that was proposed was outside of the old authorized zoning regulation by 12 feet, and this only because the developer, at his cost, was choosing to preserve 3 Victorian houses and integrate them into his project. Had he chosen to demolish those buildings, the building would be up now. Meanwhile, just a few weeks ago, city council approves a project by Magil-Laurentienne that proposes towers significantly lower than the zoning requirement, at the Bonaventure entrace to the city no less, the lot with the highest possible density. Yet somehow, to you, that is not news worthy. Probably because you are fan of stunted growth.

Take your blinders off, look at the big picture."

Could this be from a mtlurber?

What a bullshit article. They do a good job of presenting an argument out of context.

Look at the Mackay site and its zoning. There is a large swath of 120m and a tiny sliver of 25m. They corrected this to make the 120m zone contiguous and this is the basis for out of control zoning? What if Ali Khan had built on top of the Victorian homes, thereby respecting the established zoning? Sometimes I think he should have, just to spite these irrational NIMBYs... but I digress.

I agree that supertall towers have no place in Montreal, and i'm against building extremely tall buildings. They are inefficient in terms of resource use and a 300m+ building would dwarf the skyline and appear out of place. But we aren't talking about building the Burj Khalifa or the Tapei 101, we're talking about a modestly sized 120m mid-rise.

This image speaks for itself.

Russell: I understand your argument and the reasons behind the decision to build the tower as is, but it remains a poor use of land no matter how you slice it.

If I were the mayor, I'd demand certain changes. Either fix your project (add a mixed-use residential component, for instance) or get out.

I'm really not fond of single-use projects that basically shut down after 5pm. To keep the downtown core lively, we need mixed use, mixed use, mixed use!

GDS my friend, for once we are in agreement!

I respect your opinion Russell, but that argument just doesn't fly.

If we extrapolate the logic and push it to the extreme, we could say that nobody has the right to complain if a 1-storey strip mall is built on the 1300 René-Lévesque parking lot, because it's the developer's right, etc.

Yes, the developer has the right to build a shitty building, but that doesn't mean we have to approve of it.

We have a right to be critical. This project, while certainly "better than nothing", nevertheless amounts to an under-utilization of prime vacant downtown land.

I find your first proposal to be a little exagerated, however, if we are talking about a NEW bridge, I'd have absolutely no problem with something like your second proposal. It should be a double deck bridge, with one deck reserved for public transit and the 2nd deck for cars. If it had 6 lanes for cars (on one deck) and 2 lanes for a light rail network, 2 lanes for buses, plus bike and pedestrian paths on the other deck...it would be perfect!

I can agree to that!

If we're building a new south shore span (not counting the Champlain replacement, but instead an entirely new bridge/tunnel), I could definitely agree to 6 lanes for cars , 2 lines for rail transit, a multifonctional path on each side for bikes and pedestrians (like Jacques-Cartier) and some express lanes for bus. That's a good 50-50 split.

I'd like to see a pedestrian/bicycle path in the middle of the bridge, (separated by barriers of course) like the Brooklyn Bridge in New York. This way, instead of having two narrows paths on each side, you have one large path in the middle. This makes it easier for snow removal, so that you could actually keep the pedestrian/cyclist path open 365 days a year instead of being closed for the winter like Jacques-Cartier. In Montreal, in the winter, there is no way to physically go from Montreal to the south shore without a vehicle of some kind. I find that to be a mistake.

Ce projet ne mérite plus sa place dans "oubliés"!

En effet. Déplacé!

Seems to be a "love it" or "hate it" design.

One thing we can all agree on at least... 16 floors? At this prime location? Quelle tragédie...

Hmm, this is a good thing overall.

The more difficult/annoying/painful it is to drive, the more we discourage driving and encourage transit use/living closer to the center/etc.

The more "pain-free" it is to drive, the more driving is encouraged and the more suburban sprawl you end up with.

Il y a des elements du design que j'aime bien, d'autres, moins.. 7.5/10, c'est quand même bien! Mais 16 étages à cet endroit?!

J'ai été voir pour le fun... en date de 2007, le terrain en question vallait: $7 548 400.00.

Construire une tour de banlieue sur un site de $7.5 million?!