Exposteve

Le Lord Berri deviendra sous peu un Fairfield Inn Marriott.  http://www.apidevelopmentconsultants.com/lord-berri-to-fairfield-inn-suites-montreal/

This article was written by Pat Hickey, long-time beat writer for the Habs for the Gazette.  He is good on the Habs beat but has limited credibility with regards to anything related to MLB or the NBA.  This is an opinion piece with little weight to it, and with all due respect to Pat Hickey he is not in any way informed on these matters, especially with regards to MLB.  How many confirmations do we need from Bronfman of the money being there to get past that question?  The issue remains in the hands of MLB and whether they decide to relocate a team or proceed with expansion.  

I don't disagree and don't expect taxpayers to pay for the bill, or at least not the full bill.  I am a taxpayer myself.  Selfishly as a baseball fan I would be okay with them investing responsibly in the project just like they do in a number of other sectors that don't specifically impact me (that's called living in society!)... but I never suggested that taxpayers should pay the full/majority of any such project.  I know enough about the economics of these stadiums that it's rarely a good deal for the government.  That said, the model being employed by Cadillac Faiview and the Canadiens is a godo example of a trend common in sports these days where stadiums and arenas are used as centrepieces for development clusters, and there may be some value in that for the government.  

Side-note:  Bringing Olympic Stadium up to even just "average" quality would require hundreds of millions of dollars... I mean average 2018 quality.  So while the idea of throwing some money at the Olympic Stadium to host MLB is a nice idea, it's still a few hundred million dollars and you're not going to get the ideal product.  The fact that recent media reports are talking about $1 billion over the next 8 years in upgrades to Olympic Stadium (some of which relates to the tower reno for Desjardins and the Biodome) should be a good indication of just how complex that building is and how far we're starting from.  And you still haven't addressed the fact that sitting in the upper deck at Olympic Stadium for baseball you may as well be in a different time zone.

I like the suggestion of a beer garden/food trucks.  Although that doesn't generate much plus-value for the neighbourhood outside of baseball games and won't increase property values, etc.  Still a good suggestion.

Preuve pour M. Lisée:  L'équipe est parti du stade olympique en 2004.  Voyons.  J'étais au stade olympique hier et je le serais encore ce soir... mais même avec tout sorte de rénovation, le stade ne serait jamais un stade de baseball mode 2018, 100% impossible.  Il n'y a pas de discussions à avoir.  

1 minute ago, Spiter_01 said:

Nothing about the previous or new REM route affects the viability of that site for a future baseball stadium. It was simply a business calculation by la caisse that with a new administration the return of a baseball team (and a new stadium) was unlikely thus killing the business case for an underground station (that would have been presumably directly connected to the ballpark) at that location.

This is my view as well.  The stadium was to be located close to the existing CN route.  I would suspect that nothing precludes a stadium from being built there regardless of whether a station is directly under/adjacent to the stadium.  We have a tendency in Montreal to think that transit needs to be underground/connected to buildings, however if it's a 5 min walk to Griffintown station, in my view that changes nothing with regards to viability/convenience.  Also agree that the REM was not a must for a stadium.  My concern was more if the elevated REM route would have made it impossible to build on the land envisioned for a ballpark.

Aside from the La Presse article which stated that the baseball stadium project was "dead" following the election of Plante (which I believe is a simplistic statement, given there are investors with significant time/cash invested in the project already), does the new route for the REM render the proposed Peel Basin ballpark impossible?  Or would there still be a way to integrate a stadium into the area there?  I am having trouble determining this from the map.

This will be a beautiful way for people to walk from the downtown core to the eventual ballpark in Griffintown/Bassin Peel!  

I'll agree with that survey. It's also the abandoned construction projects that are starting to cause issues too. Two that I routinely pass:

 

- The 40 east between the Île aux Tourtes bridge and St Charles in Kirkland still hasn't been renewed like the westbound side. The paving issues in numerous places cause problems

 

- The 40 west between Chemin des Anciens Combattants and the Île aux Tourtes bridge hasn't been refinished. As a result, massive potholes cause traffic backlogs every night.

 

The other major problem seems to be a real lack of signage and signaling regulations. Almost every construction site I see has damn cones and barriers thrown willy-nilly all over the place with many sites simply abandoned. Its a total joke.

Is there any plan to repave the 40 east between Pont Iles-aux-tourtes and St-Charles in Kirkland? The westbound side was completed two years ago and we had been advised at the time that the east-bound side would be done the following year. However it still looks like a job site, temporary overhead wires and lights. The 40-east on that stretch is dangerous at this point with uneven lanes/pavement and so many holes. Not only is it dangerous, but it's ugly as well given the temporary wires and lights and concrete blocks all over, despite this being one of the busiest stretches of highway in Greater Montreal, a primary entry point from any point west of Montreal. Many of the on-ramps/off-ramps are even worse than the highway itself.

Here it says that the project had an initial deadline of March 2017 and was completed in December 2014. However, they only did one direction. Grands chantiers - Transports Quebec

A l'ouest de st-jean sur la 40 nord il n y aucune usine ni entrepot.

 

C'est commercial seulement. Les usines et entrepot sont plus du cote sud de la 40.

C'est faux. Il y a plusieurs batisse au nord de la 40 dans le secteur Ste-Anne-de-Bellevue. Juste au nord du Chemin Ste-Marie. MDA, Specialized, Schuler Systems, Bitzer Canada, Bionetix International. En fait il y a un parc industriel au complet (dont il y a plusieurs espaces à louer, mais aussi plusieurs entreprises).

Ma perspective sur le sujet c'est que CDPQ Infra on besoin d'un site suffisamment grand pour y installer un terminus, un stationnement incitatif et les voies de garage pour les rames. Le terrain du campus McDonald semblent les plus logiques et accessibles.

 

 

Envoyé de mon SGH-T999V en utilisant Tapatalk

And let's not forget that these stations will also indirectly serve the sizeable off-island populations in Vaudreuil-Dorion, Ile-Perrot, Pincourt, etc. who will park/ride from Ste-Anne-de-Bellevue. Additionally, there is significant industrial development potential in Ste-Anne-de-Bellevue just north of Autoroute 40 near Rue Morgan... the south side of the 40 is already well built up with an industrial park, but there's a lot of potential for the north side. Having a REM that can allow passengers from all over the island to reach that area will make it more competitive compared to lower-cost land options in, say, Vaudreuil, south shore, north shore... so this is a win for the island of Montreal IMO.

If you look at the map above though, according to the proposal the stop in Ste Anne's will be independent of the train station.

I agree, there was never any mention of an intermodal link with the existing AMT train line there. Additionally, I think the road network in that immediate area is far too saturated to accomodate the expected influx of users. It's already jammed at rush hour with very little room to expand/improve because of the CN/CP lines and residential areas. I was picturing something more like this (below) where the red line is the REM, and the dotted lines are road extensions that would be required to adequately serve the station.

My feeling is that the tracks will be elevated at Sources and be run alongside the south side T-Can service road all the way to Ste-Anne. The terminal station in Ste-Anne would give access to the McGill campus.

 

 

Envoyé de mon SGH-T999V en utilisant Tapatalk

I agree. And since the mayor of Ste-Anne has advised the Ste-Anne station would be south of the 40 that makes sense. But I do not know to what extent the mayors are up to speed with developments.

Ste-Anne-de-Bellevue is an unusual town in that it's home to only ~5,000 people however has ~10,000 people that work there each day either at McGill/CEGEP and the hospital. Additionally, it serves as the primary route for commuters from off-island to switch between Hwy 40 and Hwy 20, which causes a constant flow of traffic through the town on Boulevard des Anciens-Combattants, which is already quite saturated during rush hour, especially given the entrance to Hwy 20 requires transferring through a an intersection beneath the CP/CN rail lines and the highway underpass... i.e. traffic lights can only do so much with the amount of traffic that flows.

I think the ideal location for a Ste-Anne LRT station would be where rue Poultry-Cottages meets rue des Pins... it could be accessible 1) directly from the A-40 service road, and 2) you'd need to extend an access road from Boul. des Anciens Combattants behind the hospital. rue Poultry Cottages connects to McGill/CEGEP including a sidewalk, it's convenient for the hospital, and you can complete the service road (sud) so that it connects with Baie d'Urfé. The existing bus routes that service the southernmost communities along Bord-du-lac/Lakeshore would need to cut through the campus to reach the REM but presumably this could be accomplished safely.

No idea if the above is feasible, my assumption is that it is not... but if it were, it would probably be the best way to serve the region while allowing off-island residents to park-and-ride on a route they already currently take.

You are right. Given the ambitious ridership objectives, three things will have to happen, as you state: 1) re-zoning around each station to promote TOD projects; 2) an in-depth re-structuring from the current Fairview centric STM bus network to one that feeds the rapid transit stations (3 bus terminals are planned at the Sources, Pointe-Claire and Ste-Anne stations); and higher density multi-level parking (planned at Pointe-Claire and Ste-Anne).

 

 

Envoyé de mon SGH-T999V en utilisant Tapatalk

Do we have any idea where they would put the Ste-Anne-de-Bellevue station? The mayor has hinted that it would be south of Autoroute 40 and north of Autoroute 20. There is significant land in that section which I believe is owned mostly/entirely by McGill as part of the MacDonald campus and used as experimental farms for the agriculture school.

If I am Ste-Anne-de-Bellevue and Baie d'Urfé I would want this service to improve accessibility to :

1) McGill/CEGEP John Abbott, which is home to ~8,000 employees and students

2) The significant industrial park in Baie d'Urfé located along the border with Ste-Anne-de-Bellevue.

3) The large veterans hospital/long-term care hospital that is a major employer (and recently transferred from federal to provincial jurisdiction)

4) Development of some sort of transit hub with the STM and servicing regional buses from off-island (Vaudreuil currently has buses that shuttle people to Cote-Vertu metro, and Ile-Perrot/Pincourt, etc). Significant parking would be required.

I don't know how they can accomplish this without expropriating some of the McGill land and then allowing buses to cross through the campus. The existing bus station in Ste-Anne-de-Bellevue is quite basic, consisting of 5-6 bus stops along a sidewalk on Bord-du-lac / Lakeshore just south of McGill campus. You wouldn't be giving up much by relocating it.

I agree an eventual extension to Vaudreuil could make sense in the future and could be contemplated once plans for the Ile-aux-Tourtes bridge are determined.

This is such an exciting news day. I have two questions for you, some of you may have already figured this out.

I've been looking at the map and trying to line it up with the actual street map.

1) How do you guys figure the portion between the Autoroute 13 station and YUL station will be built? I understand the Doney Spur... but how do you think they connect the area around Autoroute 40/Hymus to YUL? I can't wrap my head around how they would get to YUL unless they go underground a significant distance. Given the roughed-in train station is built beneath the US terminal/Marriott at YUL the track will for sure go underground at some point. Would they excavate from Technoparc all the way to YUL?

2) Again, regarding the Doney Spur... Where do you envision the Pointe-Claire station being? Because the way I see the Doney Spur, it meets a roadblock at Avenue Davis & rue Holiday in Pointe-Claire... where a road has been built and a Home Depot. I assume they would like to have the Pointe-Claire station just north of Highway 40 because 1) Fairview is there with the existing STM bus terminal, 2) the most densely populated areas are north of the 40, and putting the station south of the 40 would create significant vehicle traffic on the overpass (St-Jean), and 3) there is already the AMT commuter train south of the 40 (along the 20).

Merci!

Je pense qu'ils parlent de frequence de 12 mins... le trajet sera de 25-30 mins selon les infos publiés.

http://blogs.windsorstar.com/sports/bob-duff-rob-manfred-views-montreals-loss-of-baseball-as-a-tragedy

Bob Duff: Rob Manfred views Montreal’s baseball loss as a tragedy

Rob Manfred, baseball fan, thinks it’s wrong that there’s no longer a major league baseball team in Montreal.

“I think it is always a tragedy when a city loses major league baseball,” Manfred said.

Rob Manfred, commissioner of major league baseball, realizes that finding a way to rectify the situation isn’t going to be an easy or quick fix.

“I’m hopeful that someday there’s an opportunity for Montreal to again have a franchise,” Manfred said.

In Detroit Tuesday at Comerica Park, Manfred, who in January succeeded Bud Selig as MLB commissioner, talked about a wide range of topics, but Montreal was among the first he opted to address.

An engaging sort who comes across as more genuine and accessible than his predecessor, Manfred understands Montreal’s baseball legacy.

“It has a great baseball history,” Manfred said, pointing to the lore of the minor-league Montreal Royals, who preceded the Expos in the city for decades.

It was with the Royals that Jackie Robinson first broke baseball’s colour barrier in 1946.

“Probably one of the most important moments in baseball history,” Manfred described Robinson’s arrival.

Long a AAA affiliate of the Dodgers – first in Brooklyn and later in Los Angeles – the Royals saw such big league greats as Walter Alston, Roberto Clemente, Roy Campanella, Don Newcombe, Duke Snider and Tommy LaSorda come through town en route to the show.

“I think sometimes people lose track of that fact because of the departure of the Expos and the events surrounding that departure,” Manfred said. “But it really does have a long and rich baseball history.”

Canada’s first major league team, the Expos played in Montreal from 1969-2004, relocating to Washington and becoming the Nationals beginning with the 2005 season. New York Mets pitcher Bartolo Colon and Toronto Blue Jays infielder Maicer Izturis are the only former Expos currently remaining on major league baseball rosters.

It’s likely both will be long gone for the big leagues if and when Montreal makes a return.

If Montreal were to regain a franchise, it would likely be an expansion team, just as the Expos were in 1969.

Manfred clearly has no appetite for relocating teams.

“I think of our franchises as civic assets,” Manfred said. “I think they’re really important to the communities in which they exist. It’s why we have shown – I believe – unbelievable loyalty to the communities where we play.”

He emphasized this in describing Oakland’s never-ending stadium saga. The A’s play in an outdated facility that first opened in 1968, one year before the Expos debuted.

“I think we can all agree that Oakland needs a new major-league facility,” Manfred said. “By the same token, I do think it’s important that major league baseball do everything it can to help Oakland get a new facility in Oakland as the first choice.”

Manfred met recently with Montreal mayor Denis Coderre to discuss the potential for the city’s return to the majors.

“I had a nice meeting with the mayor last week and I’m going to continue that dialogue with him,” was all Manfred would say about their talks.

“I think it is important for a sport to have cities that would like to have franchises. I hope our sport will grow.

“Obviously in order to grow we’re going to need places, cities that have a demographic makeup that could support major-league baseball and I think Montreal is that sort of a city.”

Regardless, it could be several seasons before MLB expansion talk becomes reality.

So while Montreal is on major league baseball’s radar, the city remains years away from once again being on the major league baseball map.

bduff@windsorstar.com

twitter.com/@asktheduffer

On parle de 2 matchs pré-saison de baseball (parce que le stade n'est pas viable pour une équipe propre aux montréalais), 4 games de soccer (uniquement parce qu'il fait trop froid dehors), et 2 games de football canadiens (que les Alouettes ont décidé de ne pas faire cette année), le motocross, et monster truck. On parle de 10 jours d'évènements par année... 1 spectacle de musique par année peut-être... et 1-2 foires.

Si on présentait un nouveau projet de $550 millions pour être utilisé peut-être 20 jours par année... est-ce qu'il serait accepté par la population? Surtout si le nouveau projet voudrait dire qu'il n'y a pas de fonds public pour supporter un nouveau stade de baseball avec investissement privé signifactif (on n'est pas rendu la, je le sais, mais potentiellement). L'argent investit dans le stade est aujourd'hui un sunk cost.

U2 a refusé le stade olympique pour, à la place, un stade temporaire bati au Blue Bonnets.

Vous pensez que démolir le stade (qui serait déjà une dépense de centaines de millions) en gardant la tour se ferait en claquant des doigts? Il faudrait investir d'autres millions pour assurer la stabilité de la tour pendant la démolition, et qui plus est assurer sa stabilité APRÈS la démolition car je vous ferai remarquer qu'ell est intégrée au reste de la bâtisse!!

 

Vous parlez de sauver de l'argent alors que vous êtes prêts à en flauber un paquet pour nous ramasser avec un grand terrain vague après coup?

 

J'essaie d'être poli mais je vais poser la question sans remords :

 

vous êtes débiles ou quoi????

 

Merci pour ta réponse.

Tant qu'à dépenser $550M pour un stade qui va continuer de PERDRE de l'argent à chaque année et qui va continuer à nécessité des rénovations majeurs dans le futur (ca ne deviendra pas plus fort avec l'age, même si la structure semble être en bon état), pourquoi pas investir cette même somme pour améliorer l'utilité du terrain? Je n'ai jamais proposé qu'on démoli sans plan pour le redeveloppement.

Regarde, je suis amateur de sport... j'ai adoré aller au stade olympique pour les Expos, les Alouettes, etc dans le passé... mais je vous confirme à 100% que ce n'est pas viable, même renové, pour le sport professionnel en 2015. Le sport ne peut pas survivre avec seulement les passionnés/malade du sport. Oui on peut tenir des évenements unique pour 2-3 jours et ils peuvent connaitre du succes, mais à long-terme, ce n'est simplement pas viable. Si c'était viable, les Alouettes, Impact et Expos seraient la! Aujourd'hui il y a pas mal le même nombre de personnes qui visitent la TOUR à chaque année que l'assistance total des évenements au stade dans une année (alors que le stade à plus de 55,000 sieges!).

Le quartier et la ville de Montréal seraient mieux servis, à mon opinion, avec un beau projet de redeveloppement sur le site du STADE. Surtout si on fini par construire un vrai stade de baseball au centre-ville qui pourrait combler un peu la perte du stade. Evidement je ne sais pas à quel point que c'est possible de démolir le stade en laissant la tour, mais ca doit être au moins pensable de le faire. En regardant les photos du stade en construction à l'origine, il me semble que ca ne serait pas complétement impossible.

Au minimum, qu'on considere fortement la possibilité de ne pas mettre encore un toit sur le stade. Si le privé peut trouver une belle utilité pour le stade avec un toit (plus de foires, centre de congres) ok peut-être, mais mettre un toit en espérant ensuite que quelqu'un trouve une facon de rentabilisé le stade, non. Ca serait aussi ridicule que constuire un stade de baseball au centre-ville, avec fond publics, sans confirmation d'un équipe pour Montréal.

I completely understand the willingness to retain a piece of infrastructure that we have and is "paid". But the reality is, while it's paid off, it's far from free. It's a money drain today, and to have any hope of a break-even or slight profit scenario it needs at least $220 million + new roof so let's say $550 million, probably more.

If the OIB thinks the main issue holding it back is its inability to guarantee events between December and March due to the roof, then that's logically difficult to accept. What could the OIB attract to fill that revenue gap? 2-3 more tradeshows? Tradeshows that could otherwise take place at Palais des Congrès or Place Bonaventure?

A Grey Cup could take place without a roof (in fact it would be better), and all music concerts that take place there (few and far between) can also be held without a roof (since those tours usually take place at US football stadiums anyway).

The stadium has been there 40 years. It failed as a home to the Expos and Alouettes and MLS is not viable there long term either. The reality is, as a sports stadium, it's just not viable long-term to a franchise. To generate enough revenue in 2015+ you need a stadium filled with corporate boxes, one that offers tons of amenities, etc. Anyone who has ever been to any US MLB ballpark will realize it's not even remotely close to the same atmosphere. And sure all the die-hards (like me) will go watch baseball anywhere, but the casual fans, the fans that make up 75% of most MLB crowds, will have limited interest unless the team is winning like crazy or there's a special event happening.

I wish there was a viable private/public idea for the stadium to remain and be successful. But to invest $550 million+ for a stadium that will bring limited new investment/events to the city and that will still result in a stadium that, while versatile, isn't really great for any kind of event, just seems like bad money chasing bad money.

Why not consider a plan that would see the tower, aquatics centre, biodome, etc remain, but the stadium itself is dismantled. On the site of the stadium, a nice residential neighbourhood OR a combination of that with a nice park, public esplanade, amateur sports centre, etc. Build on the area's strong tourism pull without continuing to invest in a structure that really doesn't cut it in anymore.

To think the province would be willing to invest in retaining a limited-use stadium over investing a similar sum to attract an MLB franchise in a world class baseball stadium (that can also serve many other use) is nothing short of absurd in my opinion.

Everything I have read suggests at least 80,000 tickets have been sold. The interactive map on the evenko website shows Saturday is 95% full, whereas there are a few more seats available for the Friday night on the upper deck only.

MLB is definitely NOT heading "downhill", especially not relative to MLS. TV revenue is through the roof, salaries are increasing, revenue is increasing. Aside from the NFL, it's the league that has most successfully capitalized from multi-platform media.

MLS isn't even on the radar in most cities... despite the occasional place where attendance is high. TV ratings are marginal, you're lucky if you can see highlights on ESPN, Fox Sports, etc... MLS is gaining speed but still nowhere remotely near MLB.

I have my tickets to both games this coming weekend - cannot wait.

I'd venture that, if true, this is simply a timing issue. The franchise/management agreement was probably expiring on the Bonaventure property and they couldn't agree on terms. Could have been the hotel operator that decided not to renew as a Hilton. Either way, i'm sure Hilton will be back, it's a matter of waiting for the right real estate/opportunity to open up. Despite what some here want to believe, Montreal remains a strong hotel market.

I don't see this as bad news. While Bonaventure is an interesting location, it's not "typical" and probably was very limited in terms of what kind of renovations could be done. Hilton will for sure be present under its primary banner somewhere in Montreal again very soon. I'm speculating but as someone who follows the industry pretty closely, i'd be shocked if they weren't.

Meaning almost 50% of downtown Calgary is... empty !?

No, what it means is that of the total available space currently in Calgary, 42% of that is space that's being sub-leased.

Here is what the VP Marketing for the Tampa Bay Rays has to say on Montreal as a baseball market.

http://www.985sports.ca/baseball/nouvelles/baseball-expansion-possible-a-montreal-357521.html