Mondo_Grosso

Il n'y a pas si longtemps, ma femme et moi voulait acheter un condo. Un jour, elle vient me voir tout excitée pour me montré un condo dans ce même bâtiment.  Elle était excitée parce que c'était vraiment pas chère et avait une vue magnifique sur Griffintown.

Le seul problème? Ils utilisaient de vieilles photos avant la construction d'Amati pour vendre le condo!

5 hours ago, vincenzo said:

The Western Wall - all 10+ floors covering the whole width Ste Cath to de Maisonneuve would make a great animated screen - movies, advertisement, events, etc. The whole could probably be financed with the ad revenues.

%100 agree, it would be great to be able to watch on a screen the concert at place des festivals, an alternative for people who want a quieter place to sit.

1 hour ago, IluvMTL said:

''Quint is most interested in leasing it to cafes, restaurants, high-end grocery stores or ready-to-eat users''

Eataly?

Malheureusement, 35,000 pieds carrés c'est trop petit pour Eataly.

J'espère qu'on aura plus de grands immeubles locatifs de qualité. Les immeubles locatifs sont rarement construits à Toronto et à Vancouver, ce serait un moyen pour Montréal de rattraper son retard et de créer un marché plus distinct.

Installation de l'écran géant:

11 minutes ago, ScarletCoral said:

Selon cette publication dans mon fil Facebook, une annonce sera faite demain!!

« Salut tout le monde,
j'ai besoin de votre brève opinion. Je travaille en ce moment sur un projet de réaméagement du lot abandonné au coin de Saint-Laurent et René-Levesque (qui vas être annoncé demain 🤫) pour la rendre plus conviviale, communautaire et vivante.
Durant l'aménagement, l'organisme (qui consiste majoritairement de gens blancs) est très sensible de ne pas rentrer dans l'appropriation culturelle, mais en même temps, elle veut rendre hommage au Quartier Chinois.
D'après vous, avoir des décors asiatiques (ex: lanternes chinoises accrochées) et zones inspirées par des termes asiatiques (Ex: Terrace Celeste) évoquent-ils des émotions vexantes?»

 

Si j'ai bien compris, on parle d'un parc?

6 minutes ago, Hyacinthe said:

44 ÉTAGES: OUBLIEZ ÇA... pour l’instant. Excusez les majuscules, mais je suis sonné. J’arrive du pavillon des ventes du SOL (qu’on agrandit en ce moment!) Avant de mettre la main sur la porte, je suis intercepté par un homme qui me dit que c’est sur rendez-vous. Je dis venir voir la maquette de l’immeuble de 44 étages. Contrarié, il me dit que SOL aura 12 étages et me répond comme si le projet de tour de 44 étages n’existait pas. J’insiste, mais il n’y a rien faire: il n’y a que le nabot qui se vend en ce moment.

Ils vendent actuellement la phase 1, qui est de 12 étages. Leur job consiste à vendre la phase 1, pourquoi le vendeur te parlerait d'une deuxième phase qui est encore au stade de planification?

26 minutes ago, SkahHigh said:

Not enough bling-bling to those examples for some.

Aussi, il faudrait cesser de comparer ce qui se réalise à Paris, Londres ou Toronto, trois villes dans le top 16 du Global Cities Index, avec Montréal qui est au 30e rang.

Exactement, il existe plein de villes qui ont des gratte-ciel bling-bling, cela ne fait pas automatiquement d'eux un "landmark".  Même avec tous ses nouveaux bâtiments, les principaux monuments de Toronto sont la tour CN, le Skydome et le centre Eaton.

New York est un autre bon exemple, bien qu'ils aient récemment ajouté quelques nouveaux monuments, les principaux sont très vieux aussi (Empire State building, Brooklyn bridge, statue of liberty.) Le Highline est nouveau et emblématique, le tout sans être bling bling. D'autres nouveaux points de repère incluent the Oculus, the Vessel et One word trade center, qui sont tous bling bling. That's it, that's all.

On 2020-07-11 at 11:25 AM, Ousb said:

I aggree with you. Even cities with great architectural identity like London are building more and more very impressing skyscrapers. 
 

What have we built that is truly outstanding since the Big O, the PVM...? We’re pretty much stuck in the past when it comes to architectural pride. We shouldn’t always have to look in the past when it’s time to talk about Montreal’s landmarks. I guess some are comfortable with this but I’m not. Our architecture needs to reflect the future as well. 

I think an issue with what you say is that people associate achitectural audacity to landmark status, which isn't always true. There have been new landmarks since the Big O that aren't bold new architecture and vise versa.

Off the top of my head, some new landmarks since the Big O include: 

- Le Palais des Congrès, with it's multicolored façade, bright interior and pink trees.

- "Nouveau Vieux-Port de Montréal", the 1992 revitalization of an industrial sector made for a world renowned landmark.

- Place Des Festivals, a landmark more known for its vocation than it's architecture. 

- The Montreal World trade center, it is a 'horizontal skyscraper' and a leading example of urban renewal, architectural preservation and rehabilitation. 

21 minutes ago, Fortier said:

Désolé, mais la Grande bibliothèque et la Maison symphonique ne sont pas tout à fait réputées pour leur audace architecturale...

Par exemple, la Bibliothèque François Mitterand et la Philharmonie de Paris ont été construite environ aux mêmes époques que leurs équivalentes montréalaises...

L'audace architecturale n'est que des gigantesques projets avec des angles irrégulières?

1 hour ago, steve said:

Providing an opportunity to a landlord to destroy a historic bldg caused by neglect should not be upheld.

 

At that stage, what would be a reasonable alternative?

These victorians have changed hands and designation over and over again through the years. New owners/tenants will renovate and after consecutive renovations the historic value inside is all but gone.

In most cases, the developer purchased the buildings in that state. Refusing landlords the ability to redevelop neglected buildings will just lead to further neglect.

I believe that it is ideal that someone with deep pockets purchases the buildings and then save the parts worth saving (usually just the facades), which in turn stabilizes them. We have seen some excellent efforts recently, like at YUL and Le Brickfield. I look forward to seeing what Enticy does, either way I am sure it won't be worse than the cheap Indian buffet that use to be in those buildings.

Ideally the city would regulate the preservation of interiors, but then on the flipside this is an expense that not all owners can afford.

On 2020-07-11 at 12:28 PM, Mtlarch said:

I have already the Bell Center in my backyard and that's enough. It bring way too much traffic and uncivilized automobile manners in the streets around. Another stadium in the area would destroy anything that would look like a city spirit and bring around a bunch of suburbans 'invading' the city 🙂 .

Push it back behind the Costco or better near the Bonaventure highway and REM is probably the best place for it. It would also benefit a nice scenic view of the city and at the same time offering space around for people to move. The best would be to integrate that to a link with a promenade along the river across the highway.

It is a nightmare when there is an event at the Rogers Stadium and Scotiabank arena at the same time in Toronto, which are very close to each other. Although there is very little crossover between the MLB and NHL seasons (especially since the Leafs never go far in the playoffs), there are always events at the Scotiabank arena that happen the same day as MLB games.

3 hours ago, SkahHigh said:

Brivia

Brivia is a promoter, not a builder. 

12 étages

22 minutes ago, Marc90 said:

It's not called an advocacy group, it's called a lobby. 

The science has also proven that density doesn't need incredible heights to be achieved at its optimal stage. Density and height are two very different concepts that don't necessarily always have to work together. Density isn't only a concept revolving around numbers : it should mainly revolve around comfort and wellbeing. 

All lobbying is advocacy, but not all advocacy is lobbying. I am not saying to lobby the government to change a specific law, but rather to promote the general benefits of increased density, and the adverse effects of low density and urban sprawl.

You say we dont need "incredible heights", but what does that mean? Is really anything more than 120m an "incredible height"?

Density and height don't necessarily always have to go in pair, but it is one of the only ways in a downtown core with limited space like Montreal. Your term of "comfort and wellbeing" is vague and sounds more like socioeconomic issues. Despite living in cities with similar density, a person living in a Manhattan skyscraper has great comfort and wellbeing compared to someone living in Port-au-Prince.

The science proves that urban sprawl is unsustainable form of development due to its many harmful environmental, economic and social effects. Montreal has some of the fastest growing urban sprawl in north america. Skyscrapers are not the only answer, mid-rise developments in transport oriented developments would be ideal.

https://cmm.qc.ca/planification/plan-metropolitain-damenagement-et-de-developpement-pmad/