publicité
Cataclaw
-
Compteur de contenus
6 349 -
Inscription
-
Dernière visite
-
Jours gagnés
16
Type de contenu
Profils
Forums
Calendrier
Galerie
Blogs
Tout ce qui a été posté par Cataclaw
-
What a sight! Merci cprail
-
I just don't get what's remarkable or unique about this. It looks like any typical ceiling/roof you'd have on any structure. This photo here looks so incredibly common to me. Heck this may as well be the roof of a Rona! I guess we agree to disagree.
-
Merci brubru! Je fais un effort sincère pour être ouvert d'esprit et comprendre.. J'essaie de voir ce qu'il y a de particulier ou interessant mais ça reste toujours une petite boîte avec un toit plat et des colonnes. ????? Pour comparer, voici quelques stations service qui sont hors du commun:
-
If Santiago Calatrava designs a building that's shitty, it's still shitty. I believe architectural design should be judged favorably if it warrants it, not because someone notable designed it. Let it stand on its own merits. Does anybody have another picture of this gas station? Somebody show it under its best possible angle. I want to be open-minded here, but the only picture i saw doesn't really impress me.
-
Prolongement Autoroute 40 Trois-Rivières
Cataclaw a répondu à un sujet de reaper dans Projets oubliés et/ou en suspens
Ca va se faire, ce n'est qu'une question de temps. Ca parle beaucoup de ces temps ci, depuis quelques années en fait.. ça va se faire un jour. Les gens n'aiment pas trop l'A-40 actuelle qui coupe la ville en deux et qui se retrouve congestionnée du à la circulation locale + ceux qui font Quebec<->Montreal. (Ce fil devrait se retrouver dans Infrastructures...) -
Maybe it's just me, but what's so special about this gas station exactly? It looks exactly like any other gas station.. columns, flat room, tiny building. What's the big deal here?
-
Indeed, agree to disagree. I've always been of the opinion that (excluding homogeneously historic areas such as the Plateau or Old Montreal) the height of a building has little to do with the street life as long as the building has street-level activity that fits the needs of the neighborhood. The critical area is the street-level activity. What happens above isn't as important. The only thing that changes is the visual impact. Personally I like tall buildings so it's a visual impact i enjoy. Others don't share this opinion and that's perfectly fine. It's a matter of taste! In my view you CAN have a bustling street with intense commercial and cultural activity while having tall buildings. Just look at Manhattan, Upper East Side for example. http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&q=upper+east+side&ie=UTF8&sll=40.770044,-73.956635&sspn=0.012594,0.033023&rq=1&ev=zi&radius=1.04&split=1&hq=upper+east+side&hnear=&ll=40.778754,-73.956133&spn=0.012186,0.041199&z=16&layer=c&cbll=40.778819,-73.956086&panoid=9dmzWXsTRtGXxrwiZcsGsA&cbp=12,243.54,,0,0.59
-
I have to disagree. This is a neighborhood i visit often - i have family there - and there are lots of mid-rises already present in the area. But regardles... with a metro nearby, you have to take advantage of it. We need to embrace TOD. JCC: no problem dude my response was forceful but the way i interpreted your message led me to write it that way. Horay, Internet interpretation!
-
<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyCyzB0CedM?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyCyzB0CedM?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>
-
There is a very real "green craze" like you describe, and sometimes these folks tend to exaggerate a bit with certain things, but their overall theme is still a positive one: help the environment. These people get all the attention though. They're a small minority within the liberal sphere. Most liberals are conscious of the environment but won't necessarily grow their own vegetables in the back yard and wear clothes they knit themselves out of protest either. It's like this with everything in my opinion. Look at PETA. They have noble intentions, do they not? Who can disagree with the ethical treatment of animals? On paper, it's a fantastic concept everyone ought to be happy to support. Unfortunately it only takes a few overzealous types to do some illegal activities, cross some lines and taint the whole thing for everyone. A few cooky environmentalists go a little overboard and as a result anyone who cares about the environment gets labeled a tree-hugging hippy. Well that just ain't so.
-
I watched your 8 minute long video and this "debunking" is almost laughably bad. It's full of holes, logical fallacies and charts with no sources or references. The planet has been proven to be warming recently. That itself is not a myth. "Global warming", strictly speaking, is not a myth. Period. However, what *is* debatable is: a) the cause of the warming, and b) whether or not we should actually care / whether or not it'll really affect us much / whether or not we're all doomed as a result My evaluation of the evidence tells me we're NOT doomed and that man is partly responsible although not completely. That's my estimation. In any case, we should be environmentally conscious because there are millions of benefits beyond possibly curbing global warming. I don't know about you, but I could do happily without smog in our air and trash in our rivers. Being pro-environment should be a position that everyone takes. Can you really say you like pollution and want more of it?
-
100% d'accord, monctezuma. Journal de Montreal, 24 heures: "un homme violé par sa cousine à saint-néant, 10 pages exclusivité!!!" La Presse, Métro: "Crise en Birmanie - Aung San Suu Kyi emprisonnée!"
-
Blũ Rivage (Longueuil) - 26 étages (2010)
Cataclaw a répondu à un sujet de booboohome2003 dans Complétés
I disagree StLeo. I think the finished product is pretty good! Also, the Port de Mer, though it looks aged today, was very luxurious and attractive back in its day. That was the architectural style back then. -
op·pose/əˈpōz/Verb 1. Disapprove of Oppose carries many meanings and connotations, JCC, and in this instance, it is one of disapproval, given the obvious fact that none of us can do much beyond petition to developer to reconsider. This disapproval stems from what I believe to be a loss of quality of life due to the destruction of street activity. This charming street life will yield to a boring and banal pharmacy. Legally this business has every right to do what it's doing, nobody is contesting that. "the collective" here is not trying to "decide" what happens, the "collective" here is voicing its disapproval and concerns, something it has every right to do. What we're saying is that it's a shitty decision to build a boring 4-storey building with an even more boring pharmacy at the ground level. Next to a metro, this building should have 15 storeys and exciting things going on at ground level (such as unique retail, nightlife, terrasses, cultural facilities, etc.) If you ask me, zoning ought to be changed for every single lot in a 300m radius surrounding a metro station. No new construction ought to be less than 15 storeys tall next to a metro, with possible exceptions of stations located in historical areas (plateau etc) Just because i'm a staunch supporter of 99% of the projects on this site doesn't mean that the remaining 1% gets a free pass. Last I checked, this forum is for discussing projects, is it not? Well that's what we're doing.
-
If the shops were made offers to relocate in the new building and continue operating there i'd be all for it. Then we'd have the best of both worlds: New building with higher density while preserving a vibrant street life including terrasses and specialty shops (versus a bland Pharmaprix) Unfortunately this doesn't seem to be the plan, so i must maintain my opposition. Just not worth it for 2 floors.
-
Stupid decision. 24 Heures sucks, it's a lousy paper. Metro is much better, as far as free newspapers go.
-
Hey Malek, I'm going to buy Quartier des Spectacles completely and build a parking lot. Everything will move elsewhere... la vie continue. Tell me you honestly think the proposed project is an improvement over the existing situation. I dare you
-
Il y a une pétition sur le site web posté un peu plus haut -- signons le!
-
I have to side with the protesters. Adding 2 floors worth of density to an area is not worth destroying a vibrant street life.
-
pedepy: if you examine the floor heights of neighboring buildings in both cases, you can see that the Altitude has higher ceilings. The building's geometry also contributes to the angle/illusion. It seem shorter but i'm fairly certain it will be 123m as posted.
-
Indeed. Both the numbers for Altitude and Altoria are official ones, and only the Marriott is somewhat unsure. I think the Altitude numbers came from the developer and the the Altoria ones came from the avis de dérogation poster or something like that. If you read back in the threads you'll surely find it. Let's not forget that both Altitude and Altoria are more upscale than the Hilton Garden Inn, especially the Altitude. We can expect higher ceilings for such a luxury building.
-
En 2011, nous aurons possiblement trois tours de 120m+ en construction -- l'Altitude, le Marriott et si tout va bien, l'Altoria (croisons les doigts). Si le Square Philips débloque, je tombe au paradis!!
-
Argh, I have a pet peeve: I cringe whenever i hear "Ville LeMoyne" or "Ville Saint-Laurent" or "Ville Maisonneuve". There is no "Ville Saint-Laurent". That stopped existing. Now there's a borough of Saint-Laurent. "Saint-Laurent" is correct, or "Arrondissement Saint-Laurent" but not "Ville Saint-Laurent" or "Ville-anything-that-is-no-longer-an-independent-city". Sorry i'm a nomenclature nazi ;)
-
They're driving beams into the ground for excavation... it's clearly under construction. So i guess she's just unaware. Can we really be surprised? This whole project has been hush-hush from the get-go. We'd only now be finding out about it had it not been for Gilbert!
-
Well, at the recent rate of slightly less than 1 building of 120m+ being built per year in Montreal, we'd have 100 more in 100 years. However, I think the shift towards sustainability, transit and smart growth/new urbanism/transit oriented development... we may see that rate increase significantly. I'd even go so far as to suggest a rate of ~3-5 buildings of 120m+/year by 2025. We have no shortage of tall buildings proposed right now... in fact we currently have 7 buildings of 120m or more that are currently proposed, approved or under construction!! (Altitude, Altoria, Marriott, Square Phillips, Place University, Cité phase II, Hilton) Plus in the 100m+ range we have the Waldorf, 900 Maisonneuve too.
