pedepy

il n'y a rien de mal a vouloir installer un tramway sur du parc, meme en site propre. par contre si le principal de la congestion est causee par de la circulation "de transit", le tramway sera inefficace. de la meme facon, si a plus forte raison la circulation sur l'avenue du parc sert a une clientele locale, le tramway sera alors tout indique.

c'est vrai qu'un metro ne serait pas de trop non plus dans ce secteur; ce n'est par contre pas vraiment la priorite, avec st-leonard, notre-dame-de-graces, anjou et montreal-nord toujours sans veritable service.

malek, tu parles du "simple comfort" des usages, en oubliant que ce comfort accru risque d'attirer un nombre considerable d'usages supplementaires. les bus accordeons c'est bien efficace, mais pas tres attrayant pour quelqu'un habitue au comfort douillet de son siege d'auto. aussi, pour les places de stationnement, pourquoi ne pas simplement amenager un reseau de stationnements gratuits (sur presentation d'un titre de transport, s'il le faut), et laisser l'usage faire le reste du trajet en tramway / metro. a moins d'aller acheter un bbq chez rona, un tapis de 12 pieds par 20 ou un set de salon neuf, l'automobile n'est pas si necessaire que ca quand on magasine. et ces 200-300 places sont deja extremement contingentees, de toute facon. la complainte numero des gens que je connaissent qui delaissent leur vehicule pour se rendre au centre de la ville est de se trouver un stationnement - ou de le payer, quand il est disponible. dans les deux cas, le probleme est resolu.

mouhahahahahaha

le tramway coute peut-etre le tiers du prix d'un metro, mais il est aussi de moindre capacite .. ca m'enerve a chaque fois que j'entends les gens comparer les deux modes de transports de la sorte. je suis pour l'implantation d'un reseau de tramway a montreal, mais il faut realiser qu'il ne sera jamais capable de remplacer le metro et qu'il devrait etre davantage percu comme complementaire a ce dernier.

en passant, la ville prevoit passer les quelques prochaines annees a charcuter l'avenue du parc pour y renouveller le systeme d'aqueduc. pourquoi ne pas la reamenager pour une ligne de tramway a la fois ? ca evitera aux commercants du secteur de devoir subir une deuxieme vague de travaux majeurs quand la ville se decidera a etendre le reseau le long de cette artere nevralgique ...

i just can't buy this either ... there were expos fans throughout the city, and even, all the way into ontario, vermont and upstate new york, not to mention the rest of quebec and most of canada for a time. .. the latter might not have been able to get to the stadium within an hour's drive, but the 5 or so million people living within 90 minutes of the city easily could.

you may be right about baseball being more popular in the west end then elsewhere, but if you've read a few of my previous posts on the matter, you'd know how i really don't think it's relevant at all: they could've been playing cricket for all we care, it would've been the same.

after all that's happened to our mlb franchise, and with the rich hockey history we've been blessed with, it's easy to forget how popular the expos once were. they didn't call them nos amours for nothing. at some point in the late 90s and to this date, baseball somehow became taboo in montreal, making it hard to believe that it too enjoyed a storied past in this city, dating back almost to the early days of the major leagues themselves.. ..

but anyway, to get back on topic, we're really just at the point of choosing between the lesser of evils; whether we destroy it, renovate it to a better sports venue, or change it to some .. whatever it is that some people want to change it to, we're face with a huge bill. hell, if we do nothing we face a potentially huge one, too. in my opinion, if the government is willing to lend a half a billion dollars for a new permanent roof, it might as well be just as willing to invest a similar amount in renovating it, or even build a brand new facility in an area that will please more taxpayers ....

i just feel like so little needs to be done to get so much in return from this stadium ... someone just needs to show a little faith in this city and it's sports fans .... for a change ...

Concordia et la ville voulaient réaménager la Rue MacKay (la portion entre Sherbrooke et De Maisonneuve ou Ste-Catherine aura été pietonisée), mais certains résidents et propriétaires de magasins se sont plaints. Ils avaient peur du potentiel d'avoir des élèves "partyants" dans la rue.

what the hell is wrong with this street ?

someone ought to make them realize where exactly they're situated on the city map. this aint the 1930s god damnit, the city's changed !

The biggest problem with the Stadium is there is nobody to go there. Expos left, the Auto Show got the hell out of there after the roof collapsed in '99 and is now at the Palais des Congres, the trade shows mostly go to the Palais and the Alouettes are at their own place, hockey will never be there... Montreal is full of stadiums and exposition halls and now with the Quartier des Spectacles, the handful of concerts and other things at the Stadium will never return.

it was never meant to be a venue for trade shows or music concerts anyway. it sucks badly at either one of those, and stubbornly trying to make this stadium into what it's not as been the main cause for all of the ridiculous spending of the past 20 years.

It really is the definition of a white elephant (and increasingly so) even if its architecture is amusing. The public debt of the Province is over 221 billion dollars and counting quick. Putting more borrowed money into a big hole is insane.

it might hurt to have to invest even more funds into it, but if this is what it takes to eventually be able to return a profit from it, then so be it. unless you'd rather pay to maintain it for a handful of events a year forever ?

It might be interesting to remove the roof, and build a suitably shaped condo tower in the middle coming right out, and using the stadium seating area as some kind of other purpose (circular shopping-mall ring?). Might want to build it to meet the existing roof-support tower and use it as a belvedere as it is currently. The parking garages would probably be sufficient for the housing and for the retail purposes so you wouldn't need to do much basement to the building (which might be difficult because of the metro line).

a circular shopping mall ? .. aside from what i think about shopping malls in general, you're again trying to make it into something it's not. you're basically asking for trouble.

But the fact remains it is in a crappy neighborhood that is a PITA to get to from any point in the region (unless you are at a metro station, and even then, it is a long trip) and that would limit the appeal of expensive housing units...

i grew up in this 'crappy neighborhood', one that is actually very well located within the city, making it one of the most heavily gentrified parts of montreal in this last decade. a good 80% (if not more?) of this city's population is within a 10 minutes drive from the stadium, or 15 to 20 minute subway ride (or much less). alot of major league baseball ballparks can't even begin to boast that - as do alot of nfl and nhl venues also. so let it be said for the last f'in time: there's nothing wrong with where the olympic stadium is located. period.

Alternatively, we could simply dissolve the RIO and attempt to auction off the building. This would likely not be very successful. An option could be to simply abandon the building, and consequently we can give Montreal a true "Coliseum". It could be very profitable in 500 years

i've always liked the idea of putting that thing up for sale. but you'll probably get a much better price if you fix some of the bigger problems first. with some kind of 99 years contract prohibiting it's destruction, you could just hand it out at a bargain for someone who'd have a use for it - like an nfl owner ?

about turning it into ruins: interesting idea, but you know, yea.. ...

The problem there would be of course the winter fact. Concrete isn't so bad for winter and we can forget about the stadium and just leave it on blocks, but if you make nice seats and "warm materials" they will probably degrade rapidly. Ever leave something made of particle board outside? LOL

last i checked snow wasn't that corrosive; you could just cover up the sensitive elements individually rather then try to cover the whole stadium with a gigantic piece of shit fabric roof... ..

cyrus: those "gunshots" were probably just a bunch of farting birds. some people just seem to hear gun shots every night in this city ? ... funny how no one ever gets hit!

i just can't stand it when people say this stadium is poorly located.. if you look at the population distribution on the island, the big o is pretty much central to most of the higher density areas of the city, if just a tad east. many american venues would be considered much worse off by those standards.

just whining west islanders, pissed about having to drive their suvs all the way east, in seperatist land.. a downtown stadium probably would've been better, but not by much.

the only part of that article that didn't stink of anglo bitterness and made even remotely ense was the part about ambiance and football. she's right: i say remove the roof altogheter, and use the 300$ mil to convert the place into a permanent nfl size football stadium, complete with revamped concession stands, seating, and warmer materials to cover up most of the concrete.

hell, there might even be money left over to spruce up the surrounding land around the stadium itself, solidify the structure and maybe install a brand new light system to illuminate the tower at night better than what it has now.

Toronto et Montréal, les rivales

Simon-Pierre Goulet - Canoe.ca

Partager

 

 

© Tourism Toronto

Dundas Square, Toronto, émule à plus petite échelle de Times Square à Manhattan

 

^^ although i'm not a big fan of dundas square, this is the kind of visual animation i would like to see more of on ste-catherine street. i don't think it would be too much for our commercial strip, and you would think that it's pretty much just a matter for someone, somewhere, at some point to just "push" things over the threshold, causing everybody else to jump in and things could escalate very quickly..

i'm actually a little perplexed as to why this hasn't happened already ... it even got me wondering if the arrondissement had some bylaw restricting that kind of thing from happening .. ?

Ouf ! que vous faites pitié !

probablement.

pour en revenir au sujet, je suis aussi de l'avis qu'un toit retractable serait la solution ideale, mais aucun toit a l'avantage d'etre beaucoup moins onereux et applicable beaucoup plus rapidement.

le toit permanent n'avantage qu'une vocation du stade qui dans le fond ne lui a jamais ete destiner: y tenir des congres, des expositions.

je suis peut etre le seul a trouver ridicule l'image d'un trade show agricole avec comme toile de fond 65 000 bancs vides, mais bon.. j'en doute. ce stade a ete concu pour y accueuillir des evenements sportifs, et pour ca, le toit est pas mal.. inutile!

alors redonnons lui donc sa vocation initiale, et du meme coup, debarrassons nous de ce toit qui ne sert a rien!..

heureux de voir que je ne suis pas seul dans cette ville a toujours croire au potentiel de ce site; heureux aussi de constater que plusieurs son d'avis que le toit fixe est au mieux une mauvaise farce, aux consequences potentiellement catastrophiques. parce qu'en fait, le toit actuel est a toutes fins pratiques deja fixe; et on voit bien a quel point c'est moche....

allez voir ma thread dans la section 'visions', sur le stade. c'est grosso modo la meme idee - revalorisation du paysage et rebranding des installations olympiques avec celles qui l'entourent.

yara: le reflexe de vouloir demolir le stade est facile: en fait, beaucoup de stades construits autour de la meme epoque et arborant des styles architecturaux similaires (dans le choix des materiaux, surtout, et non pas de l'apparence exterieure comme telle), furent demolis, pour etre remplacer par des amphitheatres aux allures plus classique.

sauf que notre stade - et surtout, sa tour - sont aussi emblematique pour montreal que notre mont, ou la place ville marie.. quand on a voulu remplacer le shea stadium, a queens, par un stade plus moderne aux apparences moins froide, pas grand monde a verser de larmes. notre stade par contre, et en plus au prix que nous lavons paye, ne partirait pas si facilement.

on est pogne avec, pour le meilleur et pour le pire. alors autant s'efforcer d'en retirer le meilleur, je dis!..

^^ c'est ca que je dis .. c'est pour ca que je dis que l'arrondissement devrait tout faire pour attirer sur ste-cath des commerces de prestiges et autres flagship stores, souvent reserves a des arteres/quartiers commerciaux d'envergure.

comme tu dis uqam+, je verrai le meme genre de renewal qu'a vecu le qds applique a son voisin tout juste a l'ouest, entre bleury (ou city councellors) et disons stanley / mansfield, juste avant de tomber dans le quartier concordia.

on voit qu'il existe deja une volonte de "brander" le secteur, specialement autour du centre eaton. mais selon moi, une beaucoup plus grande part de la rue pourrait etre incluse et les mesures prisent pour lui apporter un petit plus, d'etre plus audacieuses.

nice to see mlb acknowledging the expos even ever existed... (i mean, other than how they still withhold rights to the name & logo, locking down whatever profit can still be made from the sale of expos merchandise .. bastards )..

i don't think i've ever watched this much soccer for my entire life ... and although i've grown accustomed to ties and even scoreless matches, what i still have a problem with is that in the event of a one goal deficit, often times teams seem to just "give up", allowing the other team to just sit on it ... it's a one goal game, god damit! show a little grit!!! ....

the other thing is, offside rules are extremely repressive .. i can understand how they're meant to prevent that a single offensive player would just stand next to the goal and wait for a long pass, almost insuring a goal thereafter; but this almost never happens anyway, and when it's a situation where a player is able to pierce through a pair of defensemen, the rule should be a lot more forgiving. .. i don't see it as a unfair advantage when you're able to sneak past the defense in a skillful manner, as it is seemlingly so often the case in so many of those offside calls ..

i know that'll never happen but .. maybe they could do it like that: if all players of the attacking team are past a certain line (somewhere between the centre line and the goal, sorta like hockey's blue line), then players would be allowed to receive passes from anywhere, to anywhere, maybe perhaps except from within the very inner "square" right in front the goal itself.. this way you eliminate unfair passes but allow for a much more fluiding offense when it gets "set up" in the attacking zone ..

another thing could be that when a player clears the ball with a huge kick that goes out of their zone and straight out of bounds, the attacking team could get a free kick from the site of the original "illegal clearance" .. coming from hockey where icing the puck is just retarded and punished rightfully so, those plays are annoying to me, too.

i'll call fifa . ..

wow this thread is all over the place ..

yara: je pense pas qu'on puisse parler du meme genre d'agreggation de commerces comme on peut le voir a new york ou ailleurs, au centre-ville de montreal. bien sur, certaines rues sont davantage axees sur un type d'entreprise qu'un autre, mais on est loin de voir ces "bundles" de commerces directements competitifs, entasses sur un seul bloc ou deux. comme on le voit ailleurs.

je pense souvent a ce petit secteur tout juste a l'ouest de times square, a new york, un petit bout de rue qui est presque exclusivement occupe par des vendeurs de diamants. sans que je dise que ce soit souhaitable ou non, d'apres moi il n'y a rien du genre ici.

et pour le "corridor" de ste-catherine, moi je n'y vois rien de mal. le seul probleme que j'y trouve, comme je l'ai deja dit auparavent, c'est qu'il y manque parfois d'animation, et d'audace au niveau des affichages de commerces et publicitaire.

il y aurait la selon moi un reel potentiel de creer quelque chose qui ne pourrait pas etre rivalise par aucun dix 30 de ce monde: un vrai strip commercial de niveau international - de bleury a stanley - sur laquelle rivaliseraient des enseignes de commerces tous plus lumieux, vibrants et originaux les un des autres, des publicites extravagantes et imaginatives comme le trouve sur les plus grand squares de ce monde. et en son centre, a l'intersection de mcgill college, une place publique vivante sur laquelle s'animeraient musiciens et acrobates de toutes sortes, sous les scintillements de cette lumiere urbaine qui brillerait jusqu'aux petites heures de la nuit.

.... ..

the only thing about fairmount (unless i'm mistaken?) is that they don't have a counter where they'll sell you prepared bagels.

i mean, you can buy bagels, some cream cheese - but you can't just buy a cream cheese bagel.

Si les batteries ne semblent pas aussi performantes que les voitures traditionnelles à court terme, évidemment, ça veut dire qu'elles ne les remplaceront jamais.

 

Logique, quand tu nous tiens.

tu oublis le facteur $$$ ... tant que la plupart de l'electricite sera produite a partir de combustibles fossiles, ce ne sera suremement pas le cas; mais si un jour une technologie permet de fournir une quantite egale d'electricite a des couts competitifs, les choses pourraient changer, performance egale ou pas.

et ca, meme si "a la pompe" le consommateur fini par payer la meme chose: a quelque part entre les deux, qqun fera son possible pour s'en mettre plein les poches.

what the ...

all sports are boring... if you have no stake in them and if you don't know them well enough to understand what's going on and to pick up on the subtle elements that make them interesting to those that do.

some like hockey, don't like soccer; some like football, can't stand baseball ... basketball is boring to some, and the most spectacular sport to others ...

Apparently the Bruins want to move Tim Thomas. I wouldn't mind seeing the Habs pick him up to provide support to Price.

are you nuts ? they need an old, washed out veteran who's physically unable to play over 20 games a year. otherwise we'll just end up with another goalie war, having to endure another 8 months of "demain soir, price ou thomas ?!" .. my ears are bleeding just thinking about it..

get price an old timer, who's seen it all, who's had success, but most importantly, has no real desire to steal the kid's job. at this point, have to be ready to basically "waste" the next season on price, if need be. play him for 60 games; if he pulls it off, he might never come down. if he's still unable to get his game up to speed for the major leagues, the decision whether to keep him or not come next summer will just be easier.

[edit: i stand corrected .. thomas is alot older than i thought he was .. i just didnt like the fact he played 43 regular season games for the bruins last year. i'd like to get someone who already knows he's a backup. i get the impression thomas would still want to be martin's main goalie if price ever faces difficulties, rather than understand his role and be there to support the kid].

this is truly strange, at best ... where's all that "cadrer avec le bati actuel" bullshit when you need it ?..

on va aller allumer des lampions pour celle la ..

a moins que les unites soient vendues en totalite avant que l'edifice ne sorte de terre, ET qu'un lot substantiel d'acheteurs motives ne se presentent avec des offres solides, ET que les gens qui auront deja acheter approuveront les changements a l'edifice pour lequel ils devront payer des taxes et des frais de condo, je pense que ce que nous verrons pousser est ce qui actuellement prevu.

c'est plate, mais bon. faut pas trop s'en faire, elle sera surement quand meme belle, cette tour. .. pour l'emplacement et la taille du lot, le niveau de densite reste quand meme acceptable.

et puis, vous savez, si elle avait fait dans les 160-170 metres, ca l'aurait sans doute commencer a chialer qu'elle aurait "cacher la vue de la pvm depuis hochelaga" ou qqchose du genre ... cette tour a passer toutes les etapes sans eveiller les soupçons des grand savants de la vie. rejouissons nous en ..

cyrus, then you're saying deregulate everything and just let anyone build whatever they want, wherever they want ?

if that had been the case in this city, alot of projects built or proposed in recent years would've been built to their initial actually profitable propositions, if not built at all - as opposed to have gotten slashed or cancelled due to heavily repressive regulations.

the point i see in cataclaw's extreme example of building a mansion on the 900 de maisonneuve lot is, tax payers have and are still footing the bill to maintaing and operate expensive municipal infrastructures such a the metro that have been planned to accommodate a much higher density scenario.

even if the owner of that home would somehow be capable of paying the same kinds of taxes a 35 storey office tower on the same lot would have, it's still wasting the infrastructure's designed potential.

i think we can all easily agree that higher density is desirable in the downtown core and that minimal limit regulations would not magically create extra demand for highrise development. one way i think we *could* see this however, is that as it as been shown before, real estate growth isnt' necesserily dead in this city, and that incentives towards density coupled with a loosening of various bylaws and processes that often tend to interefere with development by slowing it down and reducing it's size, might perhaps help funnel that growth into the downtown area, in the form of shiny glass towers on otherwise unoccupied lots instead of having it spread around the island, in no organized fashion whatsoever.

so relieved for the americans ... i can't believe the kind of officiating they've had to endure so far ..

:eek: :eek: :eek:

quesse ca batard .. il veulent faire baisser le prix des unite ou quoi ?? ..

Now please answer me this...how the fuck does one 40-storey tower on a plot make more "efficient" use of infrastructure than three 13-storey buildings? How on earth does that work?

the fuck it does it is this: transit lines loose efficiency the further away you get from them. beyond a certain point, people will start to use them alot less.

since that means what you want is to get as many people working and living as close as possible to the transit stops, and that a single 40 storey tower is higher density than three 13 storey ones, a single 40 storey building is therefore a more efficient use of transit infrastructure.

alot of ppl say that it's ok to build low on the downtown lots these days as there is "plenty of room just south". that's true, but we already layed out expensive subway lines with close stops on the downtown core planning for high density. it just makes sense then to first realize that high density that the built infrastructure had planned for, rather than keep extending the downtown area further south, having then to pay to build new infrastructures to accomodate those areas.

if you don't build up, you'll soon have to build out. if that's what you like, maybe you oughta just move to sprawl city, usa .. they got plenty of that..