publicité
rufus96
-
Compteur de contenus
479 -
Inscription
-
Dernière visite
Type de contenu
Profils
Forums
Calendrier
Galerie
Blogs
Tout ce qui a été posté par rufus96
-
Je suis bien d'accord avec ton analyse. Houston est la ville la plus grande aux États-Unis, qui ne posséde pas des limites de development. Mais il faut dire, que j'aime la skyline de Houston, surtout en arrivant en ville d'une de ses autoroutes de 12 voies!
-
And their kind are welcome in Calgary, a city of massive urban sprawl? Surely a model for ecological development. I believe Calgary never received the railroad to begin with. I like your train of thought.
-
Penses-tu vraiment que des "tours" de 3 étages seront plus écologiques? De ce que tu as dit, nous pouvons déduire que ça sera plus écologique de doubler la superficie de la ville (ou bien la tripler) pour acquerir la meme nombre d'emplois? Comment sugères-tu que nous nous transportons dans une ville trois fois plus grande que la notre? Surement pas en auto! Alors, je te pose la question: est-ce que ça sera plus écologique de prolonger nos autoroutes, ou bien de construire en densité? Ou si on prolongeait le métro, pour couvrir la ville en entier (de trois fois sa grandeur originale), mettant une station sur chaque coin de rue, ca sera assez couteuse pour le citoyen, non? Toute ca pour ne pas construire en hauteur...
-
Le 1000 de la gauchetière grandit de quelques mètres!
rufus96 a répondu à un sujet de OursNoir dans L'actualité
As a matter of fact, now that the committee is discarding the height to roof category, 1250 René-Lévesque is now our tallest at 226m, measured to its spire. I'm not a fan of the spire criteria, when the spire isn't continuous, like that of the Chrysler Building, for example, but according to the new criteria, we have a new tallest, officially. -
Le 1000 de la gauchetière grandit de quelques mètres!
rufus96 a répondu à un sujet de OursNoir dans L'actualité
That is awesome news. Even though the difference isn't big, it would somehow be nice to have a 210 m tower, in our city, and we'd jump a position in terms of buildings in Canada, passing the 207 m tall Bay&Wellington Tower, in Toronto. -
Ca ne vient pas de l'edition de Maclean's. C'est juste une commentaire de discussion, d'un individu ignorante sur le fil d'opinions, sur le site web de Maclean's.
-
This is not at all a reflection on Toronto. My point is that every city in Canada has its share of problems. Vancouver has the poorest neighborhood, Calgary is becoming a victim of its own success as it continues to sprawl, and the current (possibly former) administration of Montreal is allegedly corrupt. What I am saying, is that branding a city as a disgrace in order to sell a few extra copies with a cover page like that is over the top. By all means, attack the administration, but to generalize a city of millions like that is irresponsible, and might give people who don't actually read the article and just see the coverpage the wrong idea.
-
I don't think we're whining here. If the journalist wants to attack the administration for corruption, he can go to town. But to outright call any city in this country a disgrace is irresponsible. This city has its problems, and they're numerous. We're very conscious of them on this forum, but to call the city a disgrace isn't right. Every Canadian city has its share of problems.
-
This isn't a reflection on English Canada in its entirety, just a small bunch of morons. I understand printed media isn't doing so well these days, but this is irresponsible "journalism". Branding any city as a disgrace is nothing short of slanderous. I will reserve my final judgment until I read the article, but I'm seriously considering writing them. I don't expect it to have much of an impact, but someone has to come to bat for this city.
-
Obviously this issue has yet to be released, but has anyone seen this yet? This seems like a Montreal bashing field day. http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/07/08/macleans-covers-gallery/mac_cover_091109/ Calling Montreal a disgrace is a very strong statement, as while they sit in their Toronto office buildings, their city is suffering from many more homicides as well as a massive polarization of wealth, as the middle class drains itself to the far reaches of the GTA. I'm not saying that Montreal doesn't have its problems, but this seems to be utterly gratuitous, on the part of those who seem to love to see us fail.
-
STM : Prolongement du métro : Ligne 05 bleu vers l'ouest
rufus96 a répondu à un sujet de MTLskyline dans Projets oubliés et/ou en suspens
Living in Montreal West, I would be ecstatic if the metro was extended there. The way the buses run during typical commuting hours, it would save me a lot more than 5 minutes on my commute to Mcgill. The 105 Sherbrooke is at the mercy of Sherbrooke street traffic and takes roughly 20-25 minutes to get to Vendome (so a transfer at Lionel-Groulx is still needed) and most other buses are too infrequent. I agree that express buses would also be a decent solution, but I believe that a metro extension west, into NDG at the very least, is long overdue, and that if the Montreal West train station is to serve as a key node for an airport link, a metro there would be logical. -
Je souviens, il y a environ un ans, avant que le projet etait en retard, il y avait une affiche sur le site qui disait que l'immeuble aurait eu 110m, quand la tour comptait 28 etages.
-
Yeah, no way this thing goes up at that site with the kind of opposition we saw for the 34 floor Mackay tower. If this project is at all serious, the 1300 R.-L. site would suit it well. It's even zoned for maximum height, so theoretically there should be no problem whatsoever building it there.
-
The question is: is there any justification for a this being built right now? Are there any companies actively looking for that kind of office space, that couldn't be found be leasing office space in an existing building? Did the architects draw this for anyone in particular, or did they just have a lot of spare time on their hands? Also, perhaps it would be easier for the city to approve a zoning change for an office tower, rather than a residential tower. It seems somehow more functional, perhaps.
-
-
I have also sent an email to the Mayor. Wishful thinking: when Tremblay sees the OCPM's report he throws it out the window and into the street, to be trampled on by car and horse-drawn carriage alike.
-
Est-ce que la ville respectera la rapport? Ca c'est la vraie question, a mon avis. Parce que la ville, elle-meme, etait en faveur de construire la tour. Sunlighting and Wind effects? That's what it has come to now. Every possible reason in the book to not build tall or dense, even when the project is eco-friendly! J'ai tellement hate pour qu'ils construisent un immeuble de 6 etages au 1300 R.-L, dans une quinzaine d'annees, en rejetant tous les autres propositions!
-
^That is one hell of a density shot. Nice job. Taken from Concordia's Hall building, I assume?
-
he's just upset because HQ has the rights to Churchill Falls, for next to nothing
-
griffintown Les Bassins du Nouveau Havre (Projet global)
rufus96 a répondu à un sujet de Miska dans En Construction
If we dig deep enough, we could build the world's tallest underground tower! It would even be environmentally friendly because heating would be geothermal! And yet, the NIMBYs would still probably have something negative to say about it. -
C'est sur que les hotels comme Waldorf-Astoria ont entendu les nouvelles! (J'espere)
-
You'll have to excuse me, on this one. What I meant to express was: I think your argument is pretty ridiculous. Poor translation, on my behalf. Bon, pas le Quebec entier, mais est-ce qu'on est d'accord que la majorite de Quebecois qui ont vote ont choisi Charest? Bien sur que n'importe quel parti en pouvoir doit ecoute la population, idealement, mais malheuresement ca ne se passe pas toujours. Je dois avouer que j'ai un probleme quand tu blames les federalistes. Je le trouve bizarre comme generalization, de dire qu'une tel proportion de la population ont l'habitude de s'ecraser devant le federale. Je ne pense pas que les souverainistes feront mieux en ce cas, parce que je pense que M. Harper s'en fou de tout ce qui se passe, au Quebec. Je blame tout le monde (avec des taux de participation degolasse) pour avoir mis des politiciens lethargiques au pouvoir. Peut-etre le Maire de Montreal peut bouger et faire quelque chose pour sa propre ville? Je ne pense pas, en ce cas-ci que c'est un affaire federaliste/souverainiste. Mais esperons, que notre gouvernment puisse remporter une victoire pour Montreal.
-
petite correction: *c'est mieux QUE chialer...*
-
Ok bon, peut-etre que non, mais la resultat est quand-meme que la plupart de ce et celles qui ont vote a choisi Charest, et il est reste premier ministre. Mon point est qu'au lieu de faire une gigantesque generalization comme blamer tous les federalistes pour ce probleme, il faut faire quelque chose de plus proactif. Peut-etre que nous pouvons, comme citoyens, mettre de la pression sur notres membres elus. Peut-etre que ca machera pas, mais a mon avis, c'est mieux de chialer contre une grande proportion de la population, sur l'internet.
-
I completely agree. A two meter difference is absolutely negligible. I just want the damn things to be built in one form or another so that we can take some sort of positive away from this. The NIMBYs want cleaner, more environmentally friendly cities, which involves some measure of densification, and yet as soon as any reasonable proposal (the Maison Radio-Canada quartier, for example) casts a shadow on their property, they flock in droves to protest it, for any reason possible. This is simply another example. Because as we all know, a 9 storey, 35 meter tall building will block views of a 232 meter tall mountain. for shame.
