mont royal

It appears to be zoned for unlimited..ugliness.

Thanks Memphis, Always enjoy your photos and the context they capture!

Maybe too much gin.

Not sure that everyone complains and most who do, shop elsewhere, just as you suggest. The prices and convenience mean that it is very popular, and crowded, with people who don’t really care much about supporting local commerce or employment conditions. They just want convenient low priced shopping.

OI think that you are veering away from the underlying issue. This discussion began with the assertion that local residents have nothing to fear, or worse, that they are simple ne’er do wells. Some good points were made about how it is possible, with appropriate government support, to allay their fears, and to have a community with varying levels of wealth. I support that vision, but I think that we are in danger of minimizing the complexities of actually achieving that vision. When low income owners go up against the wishes of developers, the odds are not in their favour. As to the cost of new building codes, thèse will be handled quite comfortably by the newcomers. My guess is that over time, many many long-term residents of the Point will be forced to to leave their community...unwillingly. ,

Current residents definitely should be wary. Everything will depend on what is actually being supplied. If the main objective is gentrification, then many will have to leave their neighbourhood and probably will be forced to live further away from the city centre. Developers have a natural tendency to build units which will bring a higher return. So, in my view we are not dealing with abstract economics, we are dealing with hard core politics...and without strong political engagement by locals, they will get the short end of the stick.

Another good example of Quebec`s technical genius. Now, lets see that translated into marketing and financial excellence.

Remind us, what are the arguments in favour of this project? What are the specific concerns raised in the decision that you disagree with...and why? A thoughtful debate is always welcome here.

This article is more of a promotional look at Montreal International than of the impact and importance of IISB itself. MI is a means to an end, to all accounts quite a good one, but it is not an end in itself. In the future, I would like to see less PR about MI and more hard facts about any new arrivals. Too much PR like this and I begin to suspect that there are problems behind the scenes that we don’t know about.

Welcome back. Like others I was worried and missed your erudite wisdom. I had a heart attack 25 years ago and am in better health now than since my youth. The big challenge for me after my hospital stay was to overcome my fear of being physically active. I didn’t think that I would ever downhill ski or swing an axe again. A good rehab programme helped me through that, as did a young doctors advice...’ Get out there and mix it up. Don’t be afraid of a little stress, it is good for you.’ Alors, je te souhait une longue vie active, pleine de joie et amour. Vive le Charlevoix!

Montreal has much more creative energy these days than does Hollywood. He is smart to keep his distance.

Who is complaining exactly? My impression is that the vast majority of Quebecers know and appreciate just how fortunate we are. I would also add that most of them seem to be, for good reason, very proud of our accomplishments in Hydro development.

Unfortunately, double the access and all you will do is double the traffic. its a lose-lose tailspin. lo

A reminder...this survey was not about what we wanted; it was about what we thought might happen

There is also a physical reason. Both Toronto and Vancouver are hemmed in; Toronto by the lake, and Vancouver by the ocean in front and the mountains behind. So prime property is simply more available in Montreal than in the other two cities. If you want to be close to downtown it is twice as easy in Montreal as in Toronto and even more so than in Vancouver. So, in theory, if all other aspects were the same, central housing in Toronto should actually cost almost twice as much as in Montreal.

Right! I am optimistic that it won’t happen in the near future.

Not really. It actually gives us all an opportunity to see, in a non- contentious way, the thinking of our members. The results will help us to refine, or change, or hone up our opinions on this issue.

Whatever the criteria , and I think that that is a good list, we should start with the premise that a skyline has very little to do with the quality of life for the people who actually live and work here. Just because the outline of a city is symmetrical from a distance has absolutely no bearing on our daily lives. So, as inhabitants, we basically see the city from the sidewalks, although we do appreciate the views from the river or Mt Royal. Another important point is that, no matter what we think we can do to beautify the city, either from ground- level or from a distance, we cannot look to the developers for leadership. They are ruled by the bottom line and in most cases aesthetic considerations have a negative impact on their profits. So, it is up to the citizens to give leadership, either directly such as Mme Lambert, or via our elected representatives. In fact, this forum itself is an excellent medium to have influence. There is considerable knowledge here, many thoughtful suggestions, and a healthy passion about our city. I have no doubt that the views expressed here are often taken into consideration by those in a position to make decisions.

Attention Ducharme Average age of scorers tonight? 22.6 years

The problem with RL started long before the current administration. It was conceived as some kind of corporate haven, lined with cavernous and presumably prestigious entry halls. The result is an empty sterile boulevard. If you get a thrill out of looming canyons it makes for good photo ops..maybe. Until it develops street level commercial activities, it will remain a futile gesture to grandiosity.

I still think that we should just buy Labrador. Newfoundland has always treated it with disdain; they don’t have the means to develop it, it is more closely aligned geographically to Quebec...and it never should have been given to Newfoundland in the first place. If they won’t sell, then we should slowly take over economic control anyway until such time as the population is largely francophone and is open to voting for union with Quebec.

Either that or Canvar.

Canada’s economic ties to the UK are important and will remain important. Our political ties as they relate to the monarchy are completely anachronistic. My guess is that, after Elizabeth, the monarch will survive there...for the same reason that Hollywood survives. They both provide enchanted dreams to millions of wannabe princesses. The touristic benefits are considerable. Any minor role that they play in democratic governance can readily be replaced by a non-hereditary position. For obvious reasons Quebec can lead the parade for the removal of the monarchy from our political system here. The irony is that it actually plays such a dismally insignificant role here that it is hard to mobilize the energy to get rid of it. However, with the imminent changing of the guard, maybe we should all just hold our noses and get the nasty job done for once and all. Unfortunately, the monarchy is not a passive benevolent system. It is a vicious form of elitism and privilege. The so-called royal family has its tentacles throughout the UK and abroad. A huge proportion of London’s real estate is held by nobility... doled out for 99 year mortgages, and feeding the insatiable needs of a privileged few.

In my view, it is true that in some instances, a massive verticale skyline brings beauty along with a sense of power. Looking down at Manhattan is awe inspiring; so is looking up at Hong Kong from the ferry. Montreal will never achieve that combined sense of power and beauty. To try to emulate that is a game for losers. Paris, Prague, Amsterdam, Barcelona, Kuala Lumpur, Cape Town and many more have achieved awesome beauty by accentuating their potential for daily beauty through use of their natural advantages, plus creative architecture. This is the best course for Montreal to follow. We have the river, we have islands, we have a mountain and we even have a lake. These should be the basis of our physical and aesthetic personality.

This is not a debating society where after 30 minutes a winner is declared. This is a difficult, but healthy exchange of views on what kind of city we wAnt to live in. I notice that you don’t suggest that the project be simply abandoned and we get on with our lives...so clearly you have your own position on this debate. Personally, I have seen over this lengthy exchange a soft coming together...a sense of possible compromise from both sides. This is as it should be...and I anticipate more adjustments ahead as we find more common ground.