Aller au contenu
publicité

Cataclaw

Membre
 Afficher le profil  Parcourir son contenu

  • Compteur de contenus

    6 349

  • Inscription

  • Dernière visite

  • Jours gagnés

    16

 Type de contenu 

Tout ce qui a été posté par Cataclaw

  1. Cataclaw
    Toutes ces phases.. j'ai de la misère à suivre. Est-ce que c'est bien comme ça? Donc 1 à 4 c'est fini, 5 et 6 en construction, c'est ça?
  2. Cataclaw
    Ben non, t'as pas vu les gratte-ciels le long de René-Lévesque?
  3. Cataclaw
    Cool voir deux constructions sur De Maisonneuve Merci Francely et Gilbert! P.S. Maudit qu'elle est belle la tour KPMG. Je sais qu'elle n'est pas la préféré de tout le monde, mais de la base à la couronne je la trouve superbe!
  4. Cataclaw
    C'est quand la dernière fois qu'on voyait 3 grues ensemble sur une même photo au centre-ville de Montréal?
  5. Cataclaw
    La photo ne fonctionne pas EDIT: la ça fonctionne
  6. Cataclaw
    Ca c'est vrai! Et bien si Yarabundi est maintenant en faveur de ce projet, c'est parce que c'est vraiment un bon projet. Avec Yarabundi qui retire son opposition, nous sommes presque dans l'unanimité! C'est rare que ça arrive ici! Personnellement, je suis convaincu que l'OCPM n'a jamais été voir le site en personne.
  7. Cataclaw
    Merci pour les pics Gilbert! Je vois que t'aimes vraiment le wide-lens!
  8. Cataclaw
    Please don't lower yourself by resorting to petty sarcasm, it is unbecoming of you. I absolutely cherish discussion and intelligent debate, but if you're going to act childishly, perhaps you should indeed refrain, as you suggest. You asked me a question and i answered you twice. If you don't understand something in my answer, or my position is unclear to you, i'll be happy to elaborate, provide more details, answer any questions, justify my thoughts, and so on. If on the other hand you don't agree with my answer, that's your prerogative and simply leave it at that. Finally, i didn't insinuate you were backwards thinking, but your viewpoint suggests you are at the very least present-thinking, certainly not as bad, but definitely not mindful of the future. I see no reason to retract that comment when evidence, in the form of your postings, doesn't suggest the contrary. Ah, but why are we discussing competing metros? What does that have to do with this discussion? Yes, on a larger scale, this project's relative/perceived impact is obviously diminished, but in no way left unjustifiable. This project is not a silver bullet to dramatically increase our competitiveness with other metropolitan areas, but no project ever is. What this project will do, is lure interest, economic activity and growth in downtown Montreal. It will attract prospective developers away from the outlying suburbs back to the central city. It is interesting to note, however, that by redefining the central city as a vibrant, active and exciting place to do business, we will ultimately attract foreign investment and interest. This will increase our effectiveness at competing with other metropolitan areas! Win-win? I think so, and so does city hall, but only time will tell.
  9. Cataclaw
    You're really not reading what i'm saying, at all. I just answered you, quite specifically. I'll say again: If a new space is cleaned up, promoted and incentivized, there will be growth. If a space is a shit hole, nobody will go there. (They might go to Terrebonne instead.) Furthermore i'd like to remind you this project is part of a 2025 vision. There might be vacant lots on René-Lévesque now, but in 16 years, perhaps not. By then, we'll be happy to have laid the groundwork for expansion to the south, instead of playing "catch up". It's called forward thinking and not just planning for the present. Give it a try sometime!
  10. Cataclaw
    I can't believe you're actually asking this... i would think that it's a little obvious! If a new space is cleaned up, promoted and incentivized, there will be growth. If a space is a shit hole, nobody will go there. (They might go to Terrebonne instead.) This is excluding the construction workers that will directly be employed by this massive project.
  11. Cataclaw
    Precisely. This project is economic development at the core! This will spur growth, employ many people, etc. See what i wrote below : I also take your lack of a counter to the other things in my post to be agreement
  12. Cataclaw
    Wants and needs in this field are highly subjective. What is a want and what is a need is a matter of opinion, really. If you place the most importance on having the absolutely fastest commute possible, then this project falls unquestionably in the want category. I'll grant that. If you place more importance on greater sustainable economic growth, intelligent urban planning based on tried-and-tested methods, improving quality of life and restoring a cohesive fabric to south-downtown, then this project is unquestionably in the need category. Three synchronized lights will be put in place between the existing A-10 and the Ville-Marie tunnel entrance. That means that in over 50% of cases traffic coming in will not be slowed at all (except for the reduced posted speed of 50km/h instead of 70km/h) Let that sink in for a sec. Now, the other half of the time, when you catch a red light, you'll wait a minute and then travel down the 305 meters of road leading to the tunnel. 305 meters. That's what we're dealing here. Three hundred and five meters. It's not even like we're taking down kilometers of road here. 305 meters. Three synchronized lights. A slowdown, unquestionably. A significant slowdown more than a couple of minutes? Absolutely positively not. Granted, if there's a slowdown due to traffic congestion at rush hour, that exists already and would be there regardless. See my first point for answer. There is also a bit of avant-gardisme in this plan. There is no immediate need for expanding south, but in 10-15 years, there will definitely be more pressure to expand. In fact, there is already expansion going on now. Griffintown, Bassins du Havre, ETS, Lowney, M9, etc.
  13. Cataclaw
    I can only comment on the things you've said. And what you've said suggests an unclear understanding of urban planning and transportation systems. I see it how it is, sorry dude! I sincerely mean no personal offense. I just said this. I just said that highways are necessary to sustain the economy. Please read up, i specifically said that a balance is needed. Obviously putting every highway under ground is the best solution, always. Heck even rural highways would be better off as tunnels, extra land on top for crops! There is rarely a situation where a tunnel is worse. Unfortunately tunnels cost 3 to 10 times more. Instead of spending such an enormous amount of money for something that would ultimately have a small beneficial effect, the alternative is to put the highway at ground level, as an urban boulevard. You all know me, I'm usually quite open to ideas and debate, but in this instance, the project in question is just so clearly a good one. Two things: 1. We aren't taking the highway down because it's ugly, we're taking it down because it stands in the way of the southern expansion of downtown. This is a huge difference. 2. As someone who's been to Europe and 41 of the 50 states, i've seen firsthand what you speak of in the second half of your paragraph, and i have to agree. Yes, cities that have the best highway system (complemented by other transportation systems) are the most economically prosperous. The issue here is "complemented by other transportation systems". There is a balance at play here. At the moment, i would strongly argue that we haven't reached that ideal balance. When we do, we'll talk. Until then, we need to expand the metro, install SLRs, promote Bixi, expand the bus server, and yes, make improvements to the highway system, in smart places. On a broader scale, and in the context of a functioning economy, the Bonaventure plan has a nearly insignificant effect on automobile traffic (a few extra seconds, up to a couple scarce minutes of transit time...) In exchange, we extend downtown and raise the quality of life of an entire sector, increasing the activity and economic output significantly. It may be counter-intuitive but this project will actually do a great deal more good for the economy than bad in the range of several orders of magnitude. So again, i'm sorry you saw me as talking down to you, that certainly wasn't my intention. I detest condescension and i regret that came across as such. Unfortunately, when it comes to this project, the solution and the outcomes are "in your face" obvious and evidently beneficial. I'm a very open-minded person, always willing to measure the pros and the cons and consider all sides. However occasionally something comes along that is just "the right thing to do" no matter how you look at it. This is one such case. There is no arguing against it, at least not with rational and tangible arguments. In short, if you're against this project, i hate to be blunt, but you're simply wrong. Bring on the shovels! Vivement le projet Bonaventure! P.S. If you think you do have one or more rational arguments against this project, by all means please present them and we'll discuss it! I'm still open to ideas, don't get me wrong, it's just that as it stands now, there is virtually no con and only pro. If new information is provided i may still challenge that conclusion!
  14. Cataclaw
    First of all, i disagree. I'd like to remind you that i have a passion for infrastructure, whether it be automobile, train, metro, etc. May i also remind you that i came up with that Champlain Bridge alternative: While i may not be as knowledgeable as a transportation engineer, i have dabbled with engineering subjects in the past and present and know a thing or two. Now, that being said, the consensus has been in for some time now : Montrealers, councilors, engineers and urbanists alike mostly support this project. Why would they do that? Because this project has a small impact on automobile traffic while improving the city a great deal. Cars would be nothing without places to go. Respectfully, i think you're stuck in a 1960's mindset where the more highway infrastructure, the better. Unfortunately, this isn't how it works in real life, as the last 50 years has shown us. All research points to one truth : there is a balance to be had. Too many highways and you end up with an over-reliance on cars at the expense of public transportation, urban sprawl, pollution, noise and fractured cities. Too few highways and you restrict the flow of goods and services, thus severely hurting the economy. Like it or not, industrial goods aren't shipped by bus or metro car. We need to roads to make the system run efficiently. The solution is to strike an optimal balance. Logic tells us that a 30 second to 2 minute delay passing through the Bonaventure corridor in exchange for a significantly improved part of town is a more than acceptable trade-off. In fact -- and i mean no personal disrespect and i don't mean to insult anybody's intelligence -- but to reject this project is to essentially not understand cities, transportation and how they work. Period. This project is unquestionably excellent and i'm extremely grateful that is it going ahead full steam.
  15. Cataclaw
    En effet, on parle de 50km/h au lieu de 70km/h et 3 feux de circulation sur une longeur de, quoi, 800m? Ca va rajouter 30 secondes à 2 minutes sur le temps de voyage. Tout ça pour permettre des nouvelles constructions en hauteur et la revitalization d'un secteur au grand complet? Tu parles d'un bon deal!
  16. Cataclaw
    Regardez, je suis pro-autoroute jusqu'à un certain point. Je suis pro : prolongement de l'A-30, l'A-25, l'A-19, l'A-50, l'A-35, etc... ce sont tous des projets logiques et importants. Mais une autoroute n'est pas automatiquement une bonne chose. C'est tout simplement faux. Des exemples il y a en beaucoup : Portland, San Francisco, etc. C'est toujours mauvais de détruire une autoroute : FAUX. J'ai pas le temps de rentrer dans le débat tout de suite, mais en tant qu'urbaniste et amateur des différents systèmes de transport (quelqu'un qui a étudié le transport en profondeur) - je peux te garantir que c'est simplement et totalement faux. Dire que c'est toujours mauvais c'est ignorer l'impact de la logique et la raison du cas-par-cas. Dans ce cas-ci, c'est bien que l'A-10 soit mise à terre. Le centre-ville grandit vers le sud, donc l'entrée de la ville se déplace aussi, ce qui veut dire déplacer l'autoroute.
  17. Cataclaw
    Hein? Je pensais que t'étais en faveur de projet, Malek! Quand est-ce que t'as changé d'idée?
  18. Cataclaw
    Parce qu'il y a une remarque sarcastique le reste du fil est faux? Je te trouve vraiment négatif et étrange depuis quelques mois, Yara... qu'est ce qui arrive?
  19. Cataclaw
    Il faudrait prendre ce fil au grand complet, l'éditer un peu, et l'envoyer à la ville. Je pense que les MTLURBeurs on vraiment touché à tout les angles de ce projet. Il y a probablement dix fois plus d'arguments constructifs, de remarques intelligentes et d'opinions bien élaborés dans l'ensemble de ce fil quand dans le rapport de l'OCPM. Il ne faut pas ce fil reste ici, caché.. il faut que les gens qui prennent les décisions y prennent connaissance!
  20. Cataclaw
    Lorsque le QdS est terminé dans quelques années(?), je vote qu'on retire la section QdS et qu'on intègre le tout normalement.
  21. Cataclaw
    J'ai visité l'aeroport recemment et c'est impressionant tout le travail qui a été fait là! C'est triste de perdre Mirabel, mais ceux qui pensent que Dorval est toujours inadéquat et laid se trompent! YUL a tellement changé!
  22. Cataclaw
    La section Qds du forum bloque ma vue sur la montagne!! (Je vote pour conserver)
  23. Cataclaw
  24. Cataclaw
    Ah ok, donc si je comprend bien l'OCPM préfère que le promotteur construit sa tour de 34 étages par dessus les maisons victoriennes. OK.
  25. Cataclaw
    Too bad.. i liked Mr. Finn. I had a chance to meet him and chat with him on a few issues during the referendum. Nice guy and good vision. Good luck to him in his post-mayoral life!
×
×
  • Créer...