Un complexe de 400 boutiques imaginé à l’aérogare de Mirabel

[Monsieur_MA]

Un temple pour le pèlerinage du magasinage! Le paradis du consommateur.

[vincethewipet]

sigh.... qui es tu pour dire à des entreprises et des individues que ils ne doivent pas faire ça?

 

La majorité qui doit subir les conséquences de l'étalement urbain? L'aménagement du territoire est un choix de société qui impose des contraintes aux individus. C'est de cette façon que fonctionne l'ensemble de la société, les lois imposent des restrictions aux individus pour le bien commun. C'est la même chose pour l'ensemble des comportements sociaux jugés acceptables, comme nous tous, tu dois passer bien des jugements sur le comportement d'autrui... Je ne vois pas pourquoi c'est si surprenant dans le cas présent.

 

Ceci étant dit, ça ne veut pas dire que je pense qu'un centre d'achat comme celui-là encourage nécessairement l'étalement urbain. Je ne crois pas que l'on parle de créer tout un nouveau quartier à la Dix-30 au milieu d'un champ. Au pire ça va cannibaliser les autres centres d'achat régionaux du secteur. Je doute que la clientèle ciblée par ce centre magasine au centre-ville de Montréal.

[Cataclaw]

sigh.... qui es tu pour dire à des entreprises et des individues que ils ne doivent pas faire ça?

 

Because it pollutes more

Because it destroys prime agricultural land

Because it clear-cuts forests

Because it relies on automobiles for transportation, burning more fossil fuels, polluting more, creating dependency on oil, etc.

Because it leads to a land-use pattern that segregates functions and reduces social capital

Because it leads to wasted economic potential

Because it leads to higher infrastructure maintenance costs

Because it leads to less taxable revenue per capita and foregone revenue (parking lots and highway medians tend to not collect very much in terms of revenue.)

Because it leads to lower density which is inherently incapable of properly supporting transit alternatives

Because it expands social inequity

Because it costs more to build infrastructure too (a sewer that services 10 households could service 100 in a higher density neighborhood for the same construction costs)

Because it wastes money in a million ways, like attracting homogeneous families to a new subdivision, stimulating demand for a new school, and then forcing the school to shut down when the kids all grow up at the same time.

Because it forces people who can't drive to be reliant on others who can't (kids, teens, seniors). Two generations ago, most kids walked to school. Today, most kids are driven to school by their parents.

Because it increases transportation costs, overall, per capita

Because it fragments and disrupts natural habitats and other systems

Because it hinders interdisciplinary mixing and economic spillover effects and other linkages. Reduces transmission of tacit knowledge.

Because it reduces the potential for urban adaptation

Because it encourages people to walk less and get less exercise, contributing to reduced overall health at the expense of our health care system, that we must pay for.

Because it forces many teens into involuntary isolation, where they can only interact with their friends if their parents drive them around. Studies have found a relationship between suburban living and rising rates of depression and suicide.

Because it's economically, socially and environmentally unsustainable

 

That's why.

 

We live in a collective society, and the actions of individuals impact us all.

That's why I have a right and indeed an obligation to care about what others in our collective society are doing.

 

(Nothing personal Malek, I've got nothing but respect for you my man, but you've got to stop denying that suburban sprawl is a factually inferior settlement pattern. I'm not saying you can't live in a nice suburban home and enjoy a peaceful life, i'm just saying that you shouldn't be surprised if in the future, society places higher taxes and costs on that form of settlement, since it's now proven to carry far greater economic, social and environmental costs.)

Modifié 9 décembre 2011 par Cataclaw

[Habsfan]

Normalement, je suis en faveur de prèsque n'importe quel genre de développement. Mais MIrabel? C'est trop loin. Je ne vois pas comment ce projet pourrait avoir du succès?

 

Si tu habites à Laval, tu as la Place Laval et le Carrefour Laval. Si tu es sur la Rive-Nord, tu as la Place Rosemère et le tout nouveau Faubourg Boisbriand. Pourquoi quelqu'un irait virer jusqu'à Mirabel pour un centre d'achat?

 

C'est comme si quelqu'un voulait construire un deuxième "quartier Dix30" à St-Jean Sur Richelieu. Ça ne fait aucun sens.

[Malek]

You post all this crap, but you still can't explain why Montreal as a denser city costs more to operate on a per capita basis than any of its suburban neighbours.

 

Your model is flawed, can't you see it?

[Rocco]

Ce projet est voué à l'échec car trop loin du bassin de population auquel il est destiné.

[swansongtoo]

"Because it hinders interdisciplinary mixing and economic spillover effects and other linkages. Reduces transmission of tacit knowledge."

 

Dude. Wtf? Sorry I'm with Malek on this one. Half your post is incomprehensible the other can be debated to death. I have a hard time seeing how a shopping mall can succeed in that area but again who are you to tell private enterprise they can't build. If zoning allows it, the municipality agrees to it ... then get out of the way.

[Cataclaw]

You post all this crap, but you still can't explain why Montreal as a denser city costs more to operate on a per capita basis than any of its suburban neighbours.

 

Actually that's not true. When you factor in all the implicit externalities, including some that I alluded to, cities are cheaper and more efficient.

 

Even if it weren't the case, even if cities were more expensive, hell even if they were twice as expensive, i'd still be the right thing to do.

 

Malek: my arguments are all factually based and supported by research, studies, science and facts. Calling them "crap" just because you don't like what they say simply doesn't cut it.

 

Suburban sprawl driven by automobile dependency is wasteful, inefficient and not environmentally, socially or economically sustainable. And that's a fact. Listen man, If there were a way to create lovely single family housing with none of the serious problems that I just mentioned above, i'd be all for it. Unfortunately, that isn't the case.

 

How can you just deny that sprawl destroys forests and consumes prime agricultural land? How can you just deny that cars pollute heavily (and a heck of a lot more than a pedestrian)? Can you honestly sit here with a straight face and tell me that these things are somehow false? When a new subdivision is built over acres of forest and ecologically sensitive habitats, what do you say to that? Tough luck?

 

C'mon, man!

Modifié 10 décembre 2011 par Cataclaw

[Cataclaw]

"Because it hinders interdisciplinary mixing and economic spillover effects and other linkages. Reduces transmission of tacit knowledge."

 

Dude. Wtf? Sorry I'm with Malek on this one. Half your post is incomprehensible the other can be debated to death. I have a hard time seeing how a shopping mall can succeed in that area but again who are you to tell private enterprise they can't build. If zoning allows it, the municipality agrees to it ... then get out of the way.

 

I'm sorry that my post is incomprehensible to you. I'm sure if you google up economic spillover effects, linkages, tacit knowledge and interdisciplinary mixing, you'll find out what all of these things mean.

 

As for why we shouldn't let private enterprise build -- I never said that. I want private enterprise to build, but I don't want them to do it any way they want, lest they cause more harm than good.

According to your logic, why not have any zoning then? Hey private enterprise wants to build a coal-fired power plant next to a quiet residential area, why not, right?

 

Zoning exists because the actions of private enterprise can affect an entire community, indeed an entire metropolitan area. That's why we zone.. so we don't end up with slaughterhouses and oil refineries next to playgrounds and schools. It's the same thing here. A new super mega mall would have serious consequences which I explained in detail above. It's the same thing.

 

You can disagree if you wish, I respect your right to do so. However, my arguments represent the professional consensus among the tens of thousands of experts who have studied these issues all their lives. There are facts, studies and figures to support these claims, and if you do just a little bit of research, you'll find a mountain of it.

 

Many suburbanites feel like an attack on the suburbs is an attack on them and on their own way of life. It isn't. Stop taking this personally, guys! You can live however you want, but if you choose a settlement type that deals more damage to society, don't be surprised if society increasingly passes on the externalized costs to the consumer, aka the individual choosing to live in a single-family home with 5 cars.

 

It's like smoking. You can smoke if you want, it's your right, but smoking also causes disease and reduces overall health, which means more strain on the health care system. This is an externalized cost. The government tries to recoup these costs by placing high taxes on cigarettes themselves. So yeah, you can smoke, that's totally fine, no disrespect here, but understand that your action costs more to society so society asks you to pay more with taxes on cigarettes. Same thing with suburbs. Live there if you want, but society might collect more from you to compensate for the externalities of that choice. Increasingly, around the world, this is the trend we're seeing.

Modifié 10 décembre 2011 par Cataclaw

[swansongtoo]

Dude don't be sorry it's incomprehensible to me -- my guess is a show of hands here will tell you most of us here have no idea what you're talking about. And yeah Google will give us a bunch of different results including some that refute what you think.

 

This needs to be discussed over beers. Cheers!