Ouvrages d'art - Antenne Rive-Sud

[Né entre les rapides]

Il y a 9 heures, SameGuy a dit :

It’s the way it looks because it’s the way it looks.

The catenary system itself is ugly, but the poster of those photos above chose to focus on specific poles and wires above track switches, which — because of complexity — are particularly ugly. A catenary will never look beautiful. In other words, they will be installed whether we like them or not. I didn’t say we should just shrug it off because other stuff is uglier so “why should we do better”, I simply said that they will not stand out compared to all the other ugliness in our city, such as all the overhead utility wires and their creosote-soaked pine log poles.

Just by the way, this has nothing to do with “city of design” either. Here is what the same Metropolis looks like in a similar system, in one of the most beautiful cities on the planet, Sydney:

 

In a normal perspective with normal human vision, sure, the poles and wires are there, but they don’t dominate the field of view. But play with perspective and foreshortening with a telescopic lens — as has been done time and again — and it looks imposing indeed… but our eyes don’t work this way:

I agree.  Your point about "a normal perspective with normal human vision" is particularly relevant.

As far as the idea or perception that "the catenary system itself is ugly", I would suggest that all of us broaden and improve our awareness and understanding of the physical manifestations of human life on Earth.  Humanity can and does create beauty;  but humanity must also conduct activities and build structures+infrastructures that are not inherently beautiful-- on the contrary the human eyes tend to view many of them as "ugly"--, but are serving a valued purpose.  In a nutshell, in these cases, utility wins over aesthetics.

Interestingly, because beauty/aesthetics are also highly valued,  persons in position of power will seek to physically separate beautiful sites/buildings from  their opposite.  Areas/regions that are/were "rich" in coal and/or iron attracted mines, steel mills and a variety of industrial plants polluting the air, the land and water; workers in these plants were poorly lodged etc.  Of course, there was and still is a sort of middle ground between the above extremes.  But let us remember or become more acutely aware that much of the extreme ugliness that characterized the industrial Western World has migrated to poorer regions /countries.  Industrial ugliness has simply moved out of (our) sight.

Still, much ugliness remains in rich countries/cities.  A few are  remnants of previously less glorious eras.  Others are cases which, while not being the epitome of ugliness, exhibit basic drabness and/or illustrate poor taste.  But others are none of that:  typically, they exist because they provide essential goods or services and because no economic alternatives exist.  Endless wheat or corn fields planted on flat land may not provide the most beautiful sceneries (such as the spectacular views afforded in Charlevoix, the Austrian Tyrol and numerous others), but they represent the most fundamental form of wealth, whereas mountainous regions had been endemically poor until tourism finally brought them the good life.  In cities,  some infrastructures, eg. railroads and highways, as well as some industrial, commercial and distribution establishments are unsighty, but again they are essential to the prosperity, perhaps even the survival of the overall urban agglomeration.  You can have a beautiful Westmount and Plateau, but you can't survive without the others.     

Now, what about the "catenary system"?  -- Not beautiful, but  useful.  Come to like it, when you consider the benefits it brings to the community.  Come to like it even more when, after examining alternatives, you discover that they would either be a) too expensive, and/or b) less reliable.  And if this not enough to convince you, consider the fine example provided by @SameGuy: if a city such as Sydney felt secure enough in her standing to adopt the catenary solution,  Montreal has no reason to reject it out of hand.   Put beauty where it makes sense.  Minimize ugliness wherever feasible.  The overall picture will have achieved the high standards that we are hoping for.  The less-than-beautiful aspects will be perfectly understood as being inherent to its large size.  Nous ne vivons pas dans une maquette format géant où "tout n'est que calme et volupté" (Beaudelaire). 

[SameGuy]

9 hours ago, Enalung said:

Can we please agree that the ramp seriously needs to be torn down? That thing is such an eyesore.

And with the conversion of the exhibition hall to retail spaces, such a ramp could easily be replaced with freight elevators from St-Antoine to the area of the indoor loading docks.

[Né entre les rapides]

Il y a 14 heures, SameGuy a dit :

And with the conversion of the exhibition hall to retail spaces, such a ramp could easily be replaced with freight elevators from St-Antoine to the area of the indoor loading docks.

I had not thought of this solution, but it sounds great!  When @Enalunghad expressed his distaste of the existing ramp, I kind of agreed, but I still felt the need for a replacement of some sort.  I was aware of the conversion of the exhibition hall to retail spaces, but I had failed to view the implications. 

[SameGuy]

I remember working a couple of expositions in the 90s and it struck me how huge the indoor loading dock area is — a floor above the offices! Looking at the JLL docs, yeah, it’s as huge as I remember: it can handle 15 full-sized (53-foot) trailers at a time, a ridiculous capacity now that the space is converted to retail. Even an average Costco doesn’t need room for 15 at a time.

 

[Ti-Pierre]

[Rocco]

Travaux de nuit (grue en action)

[Rocco]

Pose de membrane isolante sur le viaduc

[SameGuy]

I’d love to know how they plan to keep “artists” off the CN Overpass with a train zipping by every 2½ to 5 minutes in both directions, as well as during the four hours of down time overnight…

[Enalung]

1 hour ago, SameGuy said:

I’d love to know how they plan to keep “artists” off the CN Overpass with a train zipping by every 2½ to 5 minutes in both directions, as well as during the four hours of down time overnight…

The place where it is easiest to access is near the Peel Bassin. Part of the problem is that even if they fence in that area, it is really easy to just get on the commuter train tracks and just walk over and onto the REM tracks. They would need to properly fence in the train tracks all the way to Turcot and beyond. They need something more heavy duty then chain link fence. It is way too easy to cut into a chain link fence. Chain link fences are way too easy to cut or climb. They might want to add cameras and movement detectors. Properly lighting the area can act as a deterrent. Sherbrooke has successfully dissuaded jaywalkers using rosebushes. Planting thorny shrubs on the slopes could help.

[amaist]

12 hours ago, SameGuy said:

I’d love to know how they plan to keep “artists” off the CN Overpass with a train zipping by every 2½ to 5 minutes in both directions, as well as during the four hours of down time overnight…

I expect that REM tracks will have their own fencing for the whole route. There will be cameras and sensors to ensure automated operation. I also expect the "artistes" to operate during the daily REM shutdown at night. They are typically quite crafty and regular REM operation is actually a safety benefit. It's predictable. Most of the time someone gets hurt on the train tracks is when they don't expect the train. I imagine that the same police force working in the Metro will have authority in the REM system. Or something similar.