etienne

Depuis ce matin il y a des camions et une pelle mécanique. Ils sont en train d'excaver le site du bâtiment qui a brûlé l'an dernier. Je n'ai pas plus d'information.

En image: les géantes. L'espace au Rez-de-chaussée semble avoir été ouvert sur l'édifice voisin. L'édifice sera intégré au complexe Embassy suites.

C'est vrai, je me suis basé sur un article peu fiable. C'est donc une augmentation de 8% de la capacité.

J'ai trouvé les photos sur internet, j'y suis pas allé moi même. Mais pour répondre à la question de Habsfan, le projet compte le même nombre de voie à l'exception qu'on applique les nouvelles normes (voies d'accotements au centre et en rive) qui en surface absolue est une augmentation de 66% (de 3 voies on passe à 5), mais compte pour 20 % d'augmentation de la capacité selon les calculs (on passe de 250 000 véhicules par jour à 300 000). edit: mais compte pour 8 % d'augmentation de la capacité selon les calculs (on passe de 280 000 véhicules par jour à 304 000)

Source Bizarre comment on a fait abstraction de tous les bâtiments du quartier Saint-Henri, comme si c'était un champ de bouette... En fait c'est probablement ce qu'en pensent les ingénieurs...

Le développeur était Ali Khan. A-t-il changé de site pour le Mackay?

Préjugés préjugés préjugés

Il faut se rappeler d'où viens Drapeau: le voici sur la première photo, en bas complètement à droite, avec le comité de la moralité publique. L'autre image ce sont les affiches qu'ils placardaient dans la ville afin de combattre la corruption. La raison pourquoi il a fait effectué ces "coupes de la moralité" sur le Mont-Royal dès son arrivée au pouvoir en 54, c'était pour que les homosexuels, qui en avait déja fait leur lieu de rencontre secret, n'y puisse s'y cacher et faire leur cochonneries. Je n'arrive pas à trouver la distance exacte, mais il fallait qu'il y ait au moins 20 pieds entre chaque arbre, et qu'on puisse voir la base du tronc. C'est aussi lui qui a instauré l'escouade de la moralité publique, un service qui existe toujours au sein de la Police de Montréal. Ce sont ceux qui voient à la prostitution et au proxénétisme. Il était un peu comme le Mario Dumont de l'époque. Vue aérienne après les coupes Le Mont-Chauve.

Un comité consultatif est composé de quelque gens, (pas nécessairement architectes ou urbanistes) qui se rencontre 2 fois par mois. Moi je te parle d'un bureau de 10 à 15 urbanistes-architectes payé à temps plein pour envisager comment doit se faire le développement, et juger de la qualité architecturale des projets. Je sais très bien ce qu'est un CCU, et leur recommandations sont souvent tassées par les exécutifs des arrondissements.

Mon commentaire concernait uniquement la proposition de transformer MTLURB en lobby et de généraliser sur le NIMBYisme. En fait, même si je ne suis pas un fan de l'architecture de Panzini, je trouve que ce projet est très osé, élégant, bien pensé. En fait je supporte ce projet. Il est viable, je pense, et s'insère très bien dans son contexte.

DENSIFIONS MONTRÉAL AVEC UNE ARCHITECTURE DE QUALITÉ Ma proposition de nom de groupe de lobbying. Je suis pas certain non plus que d'associer MTLURB à ton plaidoyer anti-NIMBY est pertinent. Il faudrait que les membres aient signé une déclaration de la sorte. Moi j'arrête pas d'essayer de vous faire voir la différence entre ce que vous percevez NIMBY et qui est en fait le plaidoyer des citoyens intéressés au développement de qualité pour de meilleurs projets que ce qu'on leur propose. Vas-y dans une consultation de l'OCPM. C'est pas quelques commentaires repris dans un rapport qui sont responsable de la stagnation et de l'immobilisme. C'est l'absence de juges pour la qualité des projets, qu'on appelait autrefois le service d'urbanisme de la ville de Montréal.

Méchant article dans La Presse

Mon nuage ! Un architecte doit être pour le développement, il est quand même impliqué dans le processus... Mais il y a aussi possibilité de réfléchir à ce qu'on veut qui soit fait, et se poser des questions sur, par exemple, ce qui adviendra du bien publique. C'est une question de justice, au fond. Je suis absolument POUR le développement de la ville, la densification du centre-ville, qu'il y ait plus plus de revenus pour la ville. Mais une partie de ça c'est d'avoir les conditions pour pouvoir conserver la qualité de vie , la qualité du bâti et surtout: du non-bâti qui a une influence sur la valeur de tout le reste. Si un promoteur ne peut que voir le site, l'architecte et l'urbaniste doit voir au-delà des limites du site, et adresser le problème dans son ensemble. Je l'ai dit, et je le répète, la Ville a abdiqué de son rôle de régulateur, pour se mettre à coucher avec les promoteurs, elle a même plus de service d'urbanisme. Heureusement qu'il reste des gens et des groupes comme celui de Bumbaru, qui pensent avec leur tête, pas avec leur pieds.

Gros arguments, très respectueux, bravo mon grand.

Le terrain est à l'intérieur des limites de l'arrondissement historique qui est sous juridiction provinciale (MCCCFQ). La mission du Ministère avec un statut qui vise à assurer un développement harmonieux, à favoriser la mise en valeur et la conservation de ses éléments distinctifs du Mont-Royaln'est pas de s'opposer automatiquement à tout projet, mais d'avoir un droit de regard sur le projet. C'est la ministre de la culture qui ultimement jugera si ces terrains, laissés vierge depuis la fondation même du séminaire de philosophie en 1876 par les Prêtres de Saint-Sulpice, doivent être développé de la sorte, ou conservés tel quel. Dans ce cas, le gouvernement du Québec ou la Ville devra se porter acquéreur. Mon avis: Comme cela a été mentionné plus tôt dans ce fil, il y a plusieurs terrains qui méritent d'être développé avant celui-là. Certes ces maisons seraient de bonne qualité, et réservées aux quelques chanceux qui peuvent s'offrir des maisons à un million. Construite à flanc de montagne, elles auront une vue imprenable sur la ville, et un environnement enchanteur. Est-ce par frustration ou jalousie que je veux m'opposer: non. Parce que plusieurs sites de qualité sont déja laissé à l'abandon, et ne sont pas développés à cause de la contamination des terrains. Plûtot qu'on développe le peu de site qu'on sait qui ne sont pas contaminé on devrait se concentrer à décontaminer les sites situés à des lieux stratégiques et les développer. Un autre argument qui me convainc, c'est que ces sites entretenu pendant des années par les sulpiciens, qui recevaient par la dime une subvention d'ordre publique, si on peut dire ça, ce sont par la bande des biens publiques et ils devraient pouvoir bénéficier d'une protection afin qu'ils restent publiques (y faire un musée, un centre de villégiature accessible à tous par exemple). Et non pas être vendu, développé et devenir accessible qu'aux riches propriétaires. C'est le même problème pour le 1420 boulevard du Mont-Royal. Les soeurs ont vendu à l'Université de Montréal en considérant que c'était un bien publique et insistaient afin que la mission d'éducation de l'établissement soit conservée. Je sais qu'on va me dire, oui mais l'Université va décontaminer la cour de triage Outremont pour développer son campus. Mais si on laisse les institutions adopter une attitude désinvolte envers ces joyaux que sont les sites institutionnels historiques, qu'on vend le patrimoine au privé, on laisse des morceaux essentiels de l'ensemble que forme le Mont-Royal à des intérêts particulier, et on aura plus de contrôle que sur une infime partie qui sera le Parc du Mont-Royal lui-même. C'est certain que c'est alléchant de développer sur le Mont-Royal. Mais à quelle condition ? Au détriment d'un bien publique vendu à la pièce ? Ou avec une vision visant à garder le Mont-Royal et ses institutions pour de futurs usages publiques ? Ça va être à la ministre de nous dire ça.

Marianopolis maintenant. Marianopolis après... Des grosses maisons... Des gros blocs... Pis un gros parking...

En effet, je parlais de la qualité architecturale. Personnellement j'aurais vraiment aimé voir Saucier Perotte gagner. Je met à coté le financement, les délais, les dépassement de coûts et regarde juste l'architecture: le projet de Saucier Perotte aurait dû gagner. Je ne pense pas que le projet lauréat participera au rayonnement de la culture à l'extérieur de nos frontières. Ils sont chanceux s'ils ont une couverture médiatique des revues spécialisées en architecture. Un projet par Saucier Perotte aurait fait de la publicité pour la qualité de l'architecture au Québec partout dans le monde, et des gens seraient venu d'aussi loin que le Japon pour venir prendre des photos du bâtiment. C'est surtout ça qui me chicotte. mais oui, Malek, le PPP marche dans ce cas, mais au prix de la qualité architecturale. C,est ce qu'ont compris les architectes. Et c'est ce pourquoi l'Ordre prend maintenant position contre les projets en PPP.

Wow, quel article. On jurerait que les PPP marchent

June 2, 2009 Seeking Clues on Suspect in Shooting of Doctor By SUSAN SAULNY and MONICA DAVEY Scott Roeder will be convicted with the death of Dr. Tiller OVERLAND PARK, Kan. — From the one-story house she once shared in this Kansas City suburb with her former husband, now suspected in the death of a doctor who performed late-term abortions, Lindsey Roeder recalled on Monday how he seemed to undergo a drastic personality shift more than a decade ago. “The man I married disappeared into this other person,” Ms. Roeder, shaken and puffy eyed, said of Scott Roeder, who was being held in a Wichita jail in the death of Dr. George R. Tiller, who was fatally shot at his Wichita church on Sunday. The authorities said charges were expected soon against Mr. Roeder. “He wanted a scapegoat,” Ms. Roeder said. “First it was taxes — he stopped paying. Then he turned to the church and got involved in anti-abortion.” But Mr. Roeder, 51, had not been among the people considered most worrisome to some abortion rights groups, some of which keep a close eye on anti-abortion groups and their Web sites to monitor what they consider threats, leaders here said. “Nobody recognizes his name,” said Marla Patrick, a state coordinator for the National Organization for Women in Kansas. One frequent demonstrator, Eugene Frye, 64, said Mr. Roeder told him at a protest about two weeks ago outside a clinic in Kansas City, Kan., that he had attended the trial this year in which Dr. Tiller was acquitted of violating state abortion laws. Mr. Roeder called the trial “a sham,” Mr. Frye said. “He felt the system had bitterly let down justice and let Tiller go free.” A worker at the Kansas City clinic said that Mr. Roeder was suspected of gluing the clinic’s locks years ago and that he had been seen trying to do the same thing before dawn on Saturday, the day before Dr. Tiller’s death. The worker, who would not give his name out of concern for his safety, said he called the Federal Bureau of Investigation about Saturday’s incident and about a similar incident involving Mr. Roeder a week earlier. Law enforcement officials here and in Wichita, a conservative town that has been a focal point of tense abortion debate in large part because of Dr. Tiller’s clinic, gave little sense of whether they had previously viewed Mr. Roeder as a concern. After he was taken into custody, they indicated that they were only beginning to delve into his past and his associations. Still, as Mr. Roeder’s relatives and others who had come into contact with him over the years began looking backward, they said they now saw some signs that might have hinted at more serious trouble ahead. For more than 10 years, Mr. Roeder had been linked, at various times and in varying degrees, to the Freemen, a group that rejected federal authority and the banking system, and to people who believe that the killing of abortion providers was justified by the abortions it prevented. In 2007, someone identifying himself as Scott Roeder posted a message on the Web site of Operation Rescue, a group based in Wichita that had devoted much of its effort to blocking Dr. Tiller from performing late-term abortions. The posting read, in part: “Tiller is the concentration camp ‘Mengele’ of our day and needs to be stopped before he and those who protect him bring judgment upon our nation.” The leader of Operation Rescue, who denounced the shooting of Dr. Tiller, said he had never met Mr. Roeder, who was not a contributor, volunteer or regular member. And the head of the Kansas Coalition for Life, whose volunteers spent hours outside Dr. Tiller’s clinic each week trying to sway patients from abortions, said he had never met Mr. Roeder, though he recalled receiving three phone calls out of the blue from him last August. Years earlier, Mr. Roeder belonged to a Kansas group known as the Patriot Movement, a citizens’ militia which, according to a fellow member, Morris Wilson, 70, aimed to “kick Uncle Sam in the shins” by bucking rules like mounting license plates on cars. “He didn’t like taxation and overregulation,” Mr. Wilson recalled, adding that Mr. Roeder had outspoken views against abortion. “He was trying to get people aware of what was going on, and put these guys out of business,” he said. “But I never seen a temper.” Mr. Roeder also encountered Dave Leach, an anti-abortion activist from Des Moines whose publication, Prayer and Action News, had received articles from Mr. Roeder. Mr. Leach said Mr. Roeder had presented strong anti-government views (he believed the government tracked money, Mr. Leach recalled, and offered his own method to “remove the magnetic strip from a five-dollar bill”) and views similar to Mr. Leach’s own on abortion. “To call this a crime is too simplistic,” Mr. Leach said of Dr. Tiller’s death. As admirers of Dr. Tiller mourned his death on Monday, his clinic, in a beige, squat building in Wichita, was closed. Clusters of flowers had been left on a wall outside, and the police monitored the facility. The future of the center, one of about three in the country to provide abortions to women late in their second trimesters and into their third trimesters of pregnancy, appeared uncertain. Some representatives of Dr. Tiller said they did not know if the clinic would reopen, given the skills required and the safety issues now clear. But a Nebraska doctor who had worked with Dr. Tiller at his clinic told a local newspaper that the place would reopen for patients on Monday — a notion anti-abortion forces said they were preparing for with the usual protesters. At some other clinics around the country, federal authorities ordered increased security from the United States Marshals Service, which had provided protection for Dr. Tiller in 1991, 1994 and 2001. “In each instance the protective details ended once a decision had been made that the threat had been mitigated or was no longer present,” a spokesman for the Marshals Service said. Dr. Tiller, who had previously been shot in both arms and had seen the clinic bombed and vandalized, was known for taking security precautions, his friends said Monday. At times, he wore a bulletproof vest and traveled with a burly, private guard. As recently as May, Dr. Tiller reported to the F.B.I. that wires to surveillance cameras had been cut at the clinic and that a hole had been sliced in the roof. The F.B.I. said Monday that the case was unsolved. But Dr. Tiller had never been cowed by threats, said Lee Thompson, a lawyer who represented him. He always wore a pin that read, “Attitude Is Everything,” Mr. Thompson said. In Overland Park, Ms. Roeder, a teacher, said Mr. Roeder had seemed ambivalent on matters of abortion, politics and religion when they first met and married in 1986. He had worked a steady manufacturing job at an envelope company, she said, until he seemed unable to pay the bills. David Roeder, Mr. Roeder’s brother, issued a statement on behalf of the family expressing shock and sadness over Dr. Tiller’s death, and suggesting that Mr. Roeder had “suffered from mental illness at various times in his life.” In 1996, the Roeders divorced, and Mr. Roeder worked odd jobs, moving from place to place and living most recently in Kansas City, Mo. In April 1996, the police stopped Mr. Roeder near Topeka for a traffic violation. Inside the car, they found a pound of gunpowder and a homemade fuse, according to published reports. Mr. Roeder was found guilty of charges including one connected to the explosives and served jail time, though an appeals court later dismissed the explosives charges after Mr. Roeder’s lawyers argued that the search of his car had been improper. At his sentencing in the case, The Topeka Capital-Journal noted, Judge James Buchele of Shawnee County District Court said Mr. Roeder presented a “threat of danger to the public.” Mr. Roeder’s 22-year-old son has been tormented, his mother said, by all that has occurred. “He keeps asking,” she said, “ ‘Could I have seen something, stopped something?” Susan Saulny reported from Overland Park, and Monica Davey from Chicago. Contributing reporting were Karen Ann Cullotta from Chicago; Neil A. Lewis from Washington; Eric Palmer from Kansas City, Mo.; Bud Norman and Joe Stumpe from Wichita, Kan.; and Mike Rice from Merriam, Kan.

C'est dure d'approcher ce sujet... Personnellement je suis pro-choix. Je pense qu'un enfant qui nait dans une famille qui l'attendait est pas mal mieux servit que s'il arrive comme une surprise inattendue et souvent dans un milieu sans ressource ou on peine à pouvoir l'entretenir. J'ai déja eut ce débat avec un américain qui se déclarait lui-même républicain modéré et ça l'a vite tourné au drame émotif. Lui et sa femme venaient de familles où ils avaient été adoptés. Donc, évidemment, sans l'adoption ils seraient pas là. Mais de là à assassiner les docteurs... Ça va ? J'ai l'impression que la religion a gros à se reprocher, ce sont les églises qui ont exploiter ce filon depuis dix ans. et parler de "baby killers" ça fait aussi monter les côtes d'écoutes de FOX news. Peut-être qu'ils vont maintenant se calmer le ponpon.

Ok: ils ont changé les fenêtres en parallélogramme pour des plus petites fenêtres et ils ont remplacé celle du dernier étage pour l'adresse avec un typo douteuse. Grosse amélioration sur Saint-Laurent?

Côté nord: on s'entend.

The New York Times : June 2, 2009 Obama Sees ‘Painful’ Birth of New G.M. By DAVID E. SANGER, JEFF ZELENY and BILL VLASIC This article was reported by David E. Sanger, Jeff Zeleny and Bill Vlasic, and written by Mr. Sanger. General Motors filed for bankruptcy on Monday morning, submitting its reorganization papers to a federal clerk in Lower Manhattan in a move that President Obama said marked “the end of an old General Motors and the beginning of a new General Motors.” The bankruptcy of a once-proud auto giant that helped to define the nation’s car culture and played a part in creating the American middle class immediately rippled across the country, part of a process that the president said would take “a painful toll on many Americans” but lead ultimately to a strong company ready to compete in the 21st century. But for the moment, auto workers braced for news about their jobs as G.M. said it would shutter plants in Michigan, Indiana, Ohio and Delaware, and plants in Tennessee and elsewhere in Michigan were put on standby. In financial markets, shares of foreign automakers and Ford surged ahead. President Obama, speaking at the White House, emphasized that investing more billions of taxpayer dollars in General Motors was not something he wanted to do, but something he felt the government had to do to avert a calamity that would hurt millions of people. “We are acting as reluctant shareholders, because that is the only way to help G.M. succeed,” Mr. Obama said, asserting that the government’s backing, coupled with the painful restructuring that the once mighty company is undergoing, “will give this iconic American company a chance to rise again.” “I will not pretend the hard times are over,” Mr. Obama said, adding that the sacrifice needed to be made for the next generation. In its bankruptcy petition, G.M. said it had $82.3 billion in assets and $172.8 billion in debts. Its largest creditors were the Wilmington Trust Company, representing a group of bondholders holding $22.8 billion in debts, and affiliates of the United Auto Workers union, representing nearly $20.6 billion in employee obligations. In a court affidavit, Fritz Henderson, G.M.’s chief executive, said that bankruptcy and a Treasury-sponsored sale of General Motors’ assets to a so-called “New G.M.” were the automaker’s only option to move forward. Failing that, he said, the company faced liquidation. “There is no other sale, or even other potential purchasers, present or on the horizon,” Mr. Henderson said. In a bit of good news, G.M. said Monday that it planned to keep its international headquarters in downtown Detroit, rather than move to the suburbs. It said it responded to concerns by city officials fearful of losing the only one of the Detroit companies to be based in the Motor City. The company was forced into the filing by President Obama, who is betting that by temporarily nationalizing the onetime icon of American capitalism, he can save at least a diminished automaker that is competitive. With the filing, G.M. follows its crosstown rival Chrysler in bankruptcy. And G.M. hopes that it can move as swiftly. Chrysler, which sought court protection on April 30, could emerge in the next few days. A bankruptcy judge in New York gave approval on Sunday night for most of its assets to be acquired by Fiat, a decision that President Obama hailed on Monday morning. “A new, stronger Chrysler” is emerging, the president said, and a new, stronger General Motors can emerge too. But first, he said, more difficult times lie ahead, for those thousands of workers and retirees affected by the car industry. The president urged those affected to see themselves as making “a sacrifice for the next generation.” The bankruptcy of General Motors culminates a remarkable four months of confrontation between Washington and Detroit that is expected to result in a drastic downsizing of the company. It also places the government in uncharted territory as a business owner, as it takes a majority ownership stake in the company during its restructuring. The company’s Saturn unit, which G.M. began in 1990 to compete with foreign-made cars, also filed for bankruptcy on Monday. G.M. has said it will phase out the Saturn brand by 2012. G.M.’s Saab unit is already under bankruptcy protection in Sweden. The German government last week picked Magna International, a Canadian car-parts maker, to buy G.M.’s Opel unit, which is based in Germany. Reflecting the government’s extraordinary intervention in industry, aides say, Mr. Obama reiterated his hope that G.M. can be brought back from the brink of insolvency, even if the company looks almost nothing like the titan of old. The new G.M. will be leaner and better run and its cars more fuel-efficient, the president said, in yet another acknowledgement that the days of high-finned gas-guzzlers are gone forever. The president was envisioning a much smaller, retooled G.M. can make money even if new car sales remain at a sluggish 10 million a year in the United States and even if G.M., once the giant of the industry, drops below its current 20 percent market share in this country. But to get there, American taxpayers will invest an additional $30 billion in the company, atop $20 billion already spent just to keep it solvent as the company bled cash as quickly as Washington could inject it. Whether that investment will ever be recovered is still an open question, although the president said he was optimistic, and that Washington really had no choice. The company will also have to shed 21,000 union workers and close 12 to 20 factories, steps that most analysts thought could never be pushed through by a Democratic president allied with organized labor. Forty percent of the company’s 6,000 dealers will close, the workers’ union will be forced to finance half of its $20 billion health care fund with stock of uncertain value in the restructured G.M. and bondholders, including many retirees, will be forced to take stock worth 10 cents for every dollar they lent the company. G.M. will also lose its spot on the Dow Jones industrial average, a crucial stock-market gauge of 30 blue-chip stocks. The car maker had been a member of the closely watched stock index since 1925.In press releases and public statements, General Motors tried to put the best face possible on its bankruptcy filing. “We see the path to the future for G.M.,” Ray Young, G.M.’s chief financial officer, said at a briefing Monday morning. “This is a once in a lifetime opportunity to get our balance sheet healthy. I feel very blessed to have this opportunity. It’s a huge responsibility.” Judge Robert E. Gerber of United States Bankruptcy Court in Manhattan will oversee the bankruptcy. He was appointed in 2000, and oversaw the bankruptcy of the cable company, Adelphia. Before that, he was a partner in the Manhattan firm of Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson, which he joined in 1971 after graduating for Columbia Law School. He specialized in securities and commercial litigation and, thereafter, bankruptcy litigation and counseling. The company’s last steps toward bankruptcy took place over the weekend as a majority of G.M. bondholders agreed not to challenge the filing in court and to exchange their debt for stock. To assist in the restructuring, the automaker is expected to hire the consulting firm Alix Partners, which has worked on several major bankruptcies, including those for Enron and Kmart. One of the firm’s partners, Al Koch, is expected to manage the liquidation of corporate assets that G.M. will shed during its Chapter 11 restructuring, people with knowledge of the bankruptcy strategy said. Mr. Obama is taking several risks under the plan. None may be bigger than the decision that the United States government will take a 60 percent share of the stock in a new G.M., leaving taxpayers vulnerable if the overhaul is not successful. (Canada, for its part, is taking a 12 percent stake.) But he asserted that any alternative to his plan would be worse, and that a liquidation of G.M. — the only other real option — would send the unemployment rate soaring over 10 percent and would radiate damage throughout the economy. “We are acting as reluctant shareholders, because that is the only way to help G.M. succeed,” the president said, declaring as he has before that his administration has no interest in running a car company and will stay out of all but the most fundamental decision-making as the new G.M. takes shape. Aware of the hardships the plan will impose on regions across the country that depend on auto production, the White House is dispatching a dozen Cabinet members and other officials across four states this week to reassure residents. Although the president said that, once the government sets up new management and a board it will remove itself from G.M.’s day-to-day operations, his aides anticipate intense pressure as the company’s managers are called to testify in Congress and face questions like why they decided to build new cars in Mexico and South Korea, rather than in Michigan or the South. “Congress and many Americans are going to say, if we own it, why can’t we make these decisions?” one of Mr. Obama’s top economic aides said, “and it’s going to be a challenge to answer that.” The president, anticipating those issues, said on Monday that a bigger share of the fuel-efficient cars to roll off G.M.’s assembly lines will indeed be made in the United States. Mr. Obama has laid out goals for all the Detroit automakers that will presumably affect their major strategic decisions. He has urged them, for example, to build smaller cars with significantly better fuel efficiency. But under the new principles, the White House would be discouraged from getting involved in G.M’s decisions about when and where to build such a car, or how long to keep producing it if it sells poorly. Six months ago, even the suggestion of such deep intervention into G.M.’s operations would have raised huge objections. But by the time the denouement came, the company seemed almost relieved. Robert Lutz, G.M.’s vice chairman, said that “for the first time in our history, the American auto industry has the ear of the administration. Their number one goal is to make us successful.” Michael J. de la Merced, Jack Healy, David Stout and Micheline Maynard contributed reporting.

Je suis d'accord qu'elle aurait dû être à gauche plutôt qu'à droite. Elle est encore récente cette piste, et ça prend un moment avant que les gens l'apprivoisent. mais j'ai l'impression que si tu prenais le même point de vue entre 8 et 9h le matin ou 4h30 et 5h30 PM tu aurait pas mal plus de monde. Si c'est un week0end, c'est normal, car cette piste est pour les travailleur. C'est la piste du Canal Lachine qui ne fournit plus le weekend.