ville mont-royal Royalmount

[FrancSoisD]

42 minutes ago, Yabucoa77 said:

@FrancSoisD correct 3 cranes.

Thx! I guess we shall expect a many more within the upcoming months, because of the vast footprint of this project.

[Yabucoa77]

15 minutes ago, FrancSoisD said:

Thx! I guess we shall expect a many more within the upcoming months, because of the vast footprint of this project.

Agreed. This site is huge. I tried to give some perspective with my pictures from today. We will see how fast it goes.

[LexD]

1 hour ago, FrancSoisD said:

 

+ 100!

1- I agree the major traffic issues have been long-lasting (i was already swearing while driving there for work outside of rush hour traffic in the early '90's!) due from faulty design in the early '60's: both Hwy 15 branches overlapping on a segment of Hwy 40 without even 1 or 2 extra lanes (!), plus the crisscrossing of the northbound traffic coming from the entrance ramp from J-T (and headed west on the 40), with traffic coming Décarie (and headed east on the 40), among other absurdities...

(I quite understand the principle of induced demand, so no need for other members to explain to me how it contributes to urban sprawl, and would reject singlehandedly most demands for highway enlargements. Albeit this "2 for 1" mess is a whole other story!)

2- I may only hope TMR will allow the residential use on this mega-site, or else harvest way less taxes, plus increase the risks the developper could face with this costly project!

So, there seems to be 3 cranes on site so far, right?

+ 1 with some of your argumentation! (I don't have anymore upvotes, so i couldn't cancel that downvote...)

Greater Mtl (and beyond) still has an horrendous urban sprawl rate... However, it has started dwindling, and definitely isn't the worst in the country! This province has assuredly for the longest time lacked any unified urban densification policies, plus our Transport Ministry has since the late '50's prioritized an aggressive highway expansion program, to the detriment of public transit. This has produced the highest per capita amount of hwy kms in Canada for decades (Quebec City having once been second in NA only to Richmond, VA!), yet somewhat ignoring the high demand for heavy public transit in Mtl's central boroughs, and beyond (East and West Island, Laval, Brossard)...

Up to recently, Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Halifax and others have been beating us with low density sprawl, though BC's major cities seem to have finally followed suit from Ontario's urban densification and green belt policies, namely the Greater Vancouver Area and its 2006 EcoDensity policy. Greater Mtl has finally joined the bandwagon, though timidly, with the PMAD program (page is in Fr., though an En. .PDF file may be downloaded) almost 9 years ago.

The rates of construction of single and multiple dwellings have actually recently switched in Greater Mtl, which shows the PMAD has gradually borne its fruits. Thus we've exponentialized the mixed use developments, finally. Yet we're quite late in comparison to Ontario & BC... but finally getting there in an accelerated manner (comparatively to past developments).

I definitely don't agree with your accusation regarding the 450 traffic, as there's a hefty share of 514 area commuters using private vehicles, just as there's a rapidly growing number of suburban commuters working in other 450 suburbs, therefore avoiding Mtl Island's congested bridges and hwys! The REM might change this reality, but most likely just a tad (anywhere between 0.25% to 1.5% in overall mobility), but we can't expect drastic changes because of the first and last mile issue in low density demographic areas...

In other words: suburban mobility is ever less pendular toward the good ol' Mtl downtown, but evermore peripheral, therefore creating congestion on the whole metropolitan hwy network...

As for your last phrase: that Club piscine mentality is slowly dying, but expect this transformation to accelerate with eventually rapidly growing numbers of suburbanites aspiring to live an urban lifestyle without having to endure long pendular commutes for work and other activities! Expect mini-downtowns to pop up like mushrooms around shopping malls within max 5-10 years in the whole Greater Mtl!

It's actually well started with Carref Angrignon, Carref Lvl / Centropolis, Distr Union Terreb, Dix30 / Solar, SmartCtrs Vaudreuil, and soon Fairview Pte-C, Faub Boisbriand, Galeries d'Anjou, Mail Champlain, Pl. Longueuil, Pl. Versailles, etc., and hopefully Rmt, too!

name one city that builds bedroom communities at the rate Montréal does considering the popular growth in relation to Montreal.

Maybe Calgary, but they also have 4 LRT lines spanning to all 4 quadrants of the city. and their population growth triples Montreal's.

other cities in Canada are expanding and developing faster but what i am speaking of is type of building. I lived in Vancouver many years. I watched the Millenium line go up. they built high density TOD all along that line, even with the REM coming , there is no area along that line that has anything remotely close to the density and number of floors you see  go up in Vancouver.

Toronto has North York for its midtown. Vancouver has MetroTown. Almost all développements in these cities are multi-dwelling post 2000. Its only here we are building cul-de sac neighborhoods that are exploding populations in places like Mirabel. The worst part of this is we are geographically the most destined to fail at this form of urbanization. Montreal is an island , its main suburb to the north is an island. People on the North shore have to cross 2 bridges just to get to the northern most end of the island, downtown is on the south side. We can only have so many bridges. we cant build anymore bridges without destroying entire neighborhoods or eco systems. Its time Montreal starts developping antenna CBD's (central business districts) starting with Royalmount.

The PMAD is great but its lack luster. it focuses on Montreal's old pre-merger limits. It needs to be revised to be more ambitious towards mixed high density specifically in West Island , East End , South Shore and Laval. Laval needs to stop building car dependant residential towers because well… the residents are car dependant, i believe there new projects will help that city become more sustainable….. Sustainable developement is about living , working and playing in the same area. I'm pretty amazed that a lot people in this city think of when it comes to reducing emissions is creating better public transit. Thats only part of the solution, we need the majority of people to live close to where they work so we need to start planning the city out in that respect. it would save billions in infrastructure. But our mayor believes all roads should still lead to downtown...and they should all be bike paths or pink metros.

Anyway there is a whole topic thread on urban sprawl on here, i only brought it up because i see Royalmount as the first true project in montreal to counter sprawl….and we need a midtown..frankly Royalmount is not big enough...they should merge and connect the blue bonnets conversion project with Royalmount and create a true midtown and repeat this planning to all 4 corners of the city.

here is a small article worth the read.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/real-estate/article-montreals-sprawl-is-shocking-urban-planners/

 

[LexD]

56 minutes ago, FrancSoisD said:

Thx! I guess we shall expect a many more within the upcoming months, because of the vast footprint of this project.

According to Carbonleo website and twitter, they are working on phase 1 which is pretty much the original draft of the project. So judging by the first rendering, 2 of the cranes are for hotels and the lower crane is for a segment of the mall.

the highest crane is positionned where the hotel that is next to where the pedestrian bridge linking to de la savane will be.

[acpnc]

Il y a 12 heures, LexD a dit :

According to Carbonleo website and twitter, they are working on phase 1 which is pretty much the original draft of the project. So judging by the first rendering, 2 of the cranes are for hotels and the lower crane is for a segment of the mall.

the highest crane is positionned where the hotel that is next to where the pedestrian bridge linking to de la savane will be.

Face aux hypothèses ci-haut mentionnées, il m'apparait pertinent de poser plusieurs questions à ce stade-ci des travaux, étant donné le manque de transparence évident de la part de Carbonleo et de VMR. Ce qui me rappelle une situation généralisée durant les pires années de l'administration Vaillancourt à Laval.

#1Où sont les résultats des supposées consultations auprès de la population promises par le promoteur?

#2 Où sont les plans définitifs et détaillés pour que nous puissions vraiment juger de ce qui sera vraiment construit sur le site et non se fier sur des hypothèses à partir d'anciens rendus?

#3 Le projet aura-t-il aussi une vocation résidentielle et si oui quelle est son importance par rapport à l'ensemble du projet, sa localisation et la clientèle visée?

#4 Quels sont les changements apportés par le promoteur en vue d'assurer l'acceptabilité sociale du Royalmount?

#5 Quelles sont les ententes avec le MTQ (si ententes il y a) afin de mitiger les effets du mégacentre commercial sur la circulation du réseau routier 15/40.

#6 Quelles sont les infrastructures que la Ville de Montréal devra construire ou aménager en vue desservir et d'intégrer le Royalmount au secteur environnant?

#7 A combien les travaux de ces infrastructures sont-ils estimés et qui paiera la facture?

Comme on peut le voir, ce mégacentre, contrairement à un projet d'importance moyenne, nécessitera d'importants investissements publics, mais rien ne garantit que ceux qui paierons les dépenses seront les bénéficiaires directs des taxes qu'il générera.

C'est en fait un autre exemple des inconhérences inhérentes à la gouvernance bancale de Montréal et ses banlieues immédiates. Une situation héritée des défusions sur l'ile de Montréal, où par un simple traçé délimitant les nouveaux territoires, les intérêts d'une entité municipale (VMR) peuvent s'opposer aux intérêts de la majorité (Ville de Montréal), sans que cette dernière ne puisse défendre équitablement ses propres intérêts dans l'affaire, ni celle de ses concitoyens. 

Le moins que l'on puisse dire, c'est que le processus est vicié depuis le début de l'annonce du projet, et qu'il conduit à une absence de consensus régional, où la majorité des citadins qui subiront les effets directs des inconvénients causés, n'ont aucun moyen légal pour s'en protéger. Une aberration intolérable dans une société de droit et sans précédent à Montréal, dont la majorité se retrouvera face à un fait accompli sans avoir même eu droit au chapitre.

[acpnc]

Les annotations négatives ne répondront pas aux questions légitimes que je pose et qui intéressent au plus haut point les montréalais. Puisqu'ils sont directement concernés, non seulement en rapport à leur qualité de vie future, mais aussi en tant que doubles payeurs de taxe à la Ville de Montréal et au gouvernement du Québec via le MTQ.

Dans une société démocratique on ne peut pas donner le feu vert à un projet de cette importance sans en connaitre sérieusement les tenants et aboutissements. Alors aux questions précises il faut des réponses précises et non les généralités simplistes qu'on nous servies jusqu'à date.

[rnr_ss]

Ça avait tu été publié ici ? Ça date d'il y a 3 semaines sur vimeo

 

[louisleonardo]

Je n'avais pas vu ce plan avant...:

 

Aussi, ceci a été posté sur leur site le 15 janvier dernier...: 

[FrancSoisD]

Once again, i agree with some of the points you bring, yet i disagree with some others. To simplify answering with my cellphone, i'll reply under each assertion in the quote below.

On 2020-02-02 at 9:48 PM, LexD said:

name one city that builds bedroom communities at the rate Montréal does considering the popular growth in relation to Montreal.

■ Calgary, Edmonton & Toronto proportionally DO compete with us in terms of sprawl, yet they beat us in per capita growth! TO's exurbs beyond Hamilton, Kitchener-Waterloo-Cambridge, Guelph, Barrie, Peterborough, Port Hope, etc. make Mtl's Lachute, St. Jérôme, Joliette & other satellite towns & surrounding smaller low-density communities pale in comparison... 😨

other cities in Canada are expanding and developing faster but what i am speaking of is type of building. I lived in Vancouver many years. I watched the Millenium line go up. they built high density TOD all along that line, even with the REM coming , there is no area along that line that has anything remotely close to the density and number of floors you see  go up in Vancouver.

■ True, for the time being. However, at least 2 Brossard TODs located along the REM have plans for towers between 25-35-storeys. It's perhaps nothing compared to the 60-80-storey bldgs that may pop up in places such as Burnaby, New Westminster, Mississauga, or Vaughan, yet it's a "game changer" for the Greater Mtl, as max 4-storey rental appt. bldgs. had been the norm here for at least 4 decades!

Toronto has North York for its midtown. Vancouver has MetroTown. Almost all développements in these cities are multi-dwelling post 2000. Its only here we are building cul-de sac neighborhoods that are exploding populations in places like Mirabel.

■ I strongly disagree that this old American dream model doesn't exist elsewhere in Canada! As i wrote earlier, ON and BC cities have taken the lead, but we're gradually playing catch-up. (Finally!)

The worst part of this is we are geographically the most destined to fail at this form of urbanization. Montreal is an island , its main suburb to the north is an island. People on the North shore have to cross 2 bridges just to get to the northern most end of the island, downtown is on the south side. We can only have so many bridges. we cant build anymore bridges without destroying entire neighborhoods or eco systems.

■ Disagreed regarding the highlighted phrase! Basically, other than more or less heavy public transit lines, it's the highway system that ensures a metropolis' mobility. Mtl has an "overdeveloped" hwy system that encompasses way more sectors than TO's or Vancouver's Greater areas, with seven (!) E-W hwys (counting Hwy 50), and 6 (!) N-S (counting Hwy 30 between the 40 and Valleyfield's Grande Île). Of course, our hwy network is older, and offers less capacity per corridor than TO's major ones, but that's also a matter of induced demand, which would be a complex tangent to include in this discussion...

Its time Montreal starts developping antenna CBD's (central business districts) starting with Royalmount.

■ Fully agreed, though we don't need to wait after Rymt! Cities of the future will develop as interconnected webs, not like suffocating stars doomed to implode at the end of their "useful lives"!

The PMAD is great but its lack luster. it focuses on Montreal's old pre-merger limits.

■ Yes, it does lack ambition. Keep in mind it's a work-in-progress which can be readjusted by the involved municipalities and other actors once every 2 years! And nope, it actually applies to the whole CMM territory, which encompasses the North Shore's 2nd and 3rd belts, Vaudreuil, Laval, the South Shore's 1st and 2nd belts.

It needs to be revised to be more ambitious towards mixed high density specifically in West Island , East End , South Shore and Laval. Laval needs to stop building car dependant residential towers because well… the residents are car dependant, i believe there new projects will help that city become more sustainable….. Sustainable developement is about living , working and playing in the same area. I'm pretty amazed that a lot people in this city think of when it comes to reducing emissions is creating better public transit. Thats only part of the solution, we need the majority of people to live close to where they work so we need to start planning the city out in that respect. it would save billions in infrastructure.

■ Dead on! 👍

But our mayor believes all roads should still lead to downtown...and they should all be bike paths or pink metros.

■ Yep, the Projet Mtl-controlled Executive Council so far seems to be downtown-centric. However, many dissenting voices inside the party are evermore manifest, too. Nope, the party doesn't believe everyone shall cycle nor take the pink line, come on! (Or else they wouldn't have boosted road maintenance as they did, while not really increasing the dismal bike network budget since Coderre.)

frankly Royalmount is not big enough...they should merge and connect the blue bonnets conversion project with Royalmount and create a true midtown and repeat this planning to all 4 corners of the city.

■ Also agreed! Rymt shall overflow up to BB, Carré Décarie, the Triangle, Westbury, Cavendish south, and especially on the St. Laurent side (but its stubborn mayor doesn't generally believe bldgs shall be higher than 7 floors...) 🙈

Cheers!

On 2020-02-03 at 9:41 AM, acpnc said:

Face aux hypothèses ci-haut mentionnées, il m'apparait pertinent de poser plusieurs questions à ce stade-ci des travaux, étant donné le manque de transparence évident de la part de Carbonleo et de VMR. Ce qui me rappelle une situation généralisée durant les pires années de l'administration Vaillancourt à Laval.

#1Où sont les résultats des supposées consultations auprès de la population promises par le promoteur?

#2 Où sont les plans définitifs et détaillés pour que nous puissions vraiment juger de ce qui sera vraiment construit sur le site et non se fier sur des hypothèses à partir d'anciens rendus?

#3 Le projet aura-t-il aussi une vocation résidentielle et si oui quelle est son importance par rapport à l'ensemble du projet, sa localisation et la clientèle visée?

#4 Quels sont les changements apportés par le promoteur en vue d'assurer l'acceptabilité sociale du Royalmount?

#5 Quelles sont les ententes avec le MTQ (si ententes il y a) afin de mitiger les effets du mégacentre commercial sur la circulation du réseau routier 15/40.

#6 Quelles sont les infrastructures que la Ville de Montréal devra construire ou aménager en vue desservir et d'intégrer le Royalmount au secteur environnant?

#7 A combien les travaux de ces infrastructures sont-ils estimés et qui paiera la facture?

Comme on peut le voir, ce mégacentre, contrairement à un projet d'importance moyenne, nécessitera d'importants investissements publics, mais rien ne garantit que ceux qui paierons les dépenses seront les bénéficiaires directs des taxes qu'il générera.

C'est en fait un autre exemple des inconhérences inhérentes à la gouvernance bancale de Montréal et ses banlieues immédiates. Une situation héritée des défusions sur l'ile de Montréal, où par un simple traçé délimitant les nouveaux territoires, les intérêts d'une entité municipale (VMR) peuvent s'opposer aux intérêts de la majorité (Ville de Montréal), sans que cette dernière ne puisse défendre équitablement ses propres intérêts dans l'affaire, ni celle de ses concitoyens. 

Le moins que l'on puisse dire, c'est que le processus est vicié depuis le début de l'annonce du projet, et qu'il conduit à une absence de consensus régional, où la majorité des citadins qui subiront les effets directs des inconvénients causés, n'ont aucun moyen légal pour s'en protéger. Une aberration intolérable dans une société de droit et sans précédent à Montréal, dont la majorité se retrouvera face à un fait accompli sans avoir même eu droit au chapitre.

Questions pertinentes, quoique la #3 dépende a priori de VMR, et non de Carbonleo...

 

On 2020-02-03 at 6:28 PM, rnr_ss said:

Ça avait tu été publié ici ? Ça date d'il y a 3 semaines sur vimeo

 

Parmi leurs images "de Mtl"... 😂

[Dominic723]

Il y a 1 heure, FrancSoisD a dit :

Parmi leurs images "de Mtl"... 😂

C'est probablement des images shunter stock, ce qui est beaucoup moins dispendieux que de faire des shootings personnalisés pour 3secondes, c'est pas une pratique rare