montréal REM de l'Est

[SameGuy]

4 hours ago, Né entre les rapides said:

Sure, but but, who is going to pay for these improvements? Perhaps they should have been part of the original plan for the REM, and therefore included in the global cost of the project, but they were not.  I simply cannot imagine a renegotiation of the REM deal with the CDPQ-i.  

Je suis entièrement d’accord.

Just like the December announcement, we become dazzled and distracted by the glitz and glamour promised by these proposals, that we usually fail to see what’s missing until the politicians have sold away our best interests; so-called “public consultations” are nothing more than poster sessions where developer reps tell us what we want, while our real suggestions and concerns are largely ignored. So much passing the buck, too. 

[IluvMTL]

https://journalmetro.com/actualites/montreal/2598762/centre-ville-on-va-etre-en-peloton-de-tete-apres-la-relance/

Le nouveau directeur général de la société de développement commercial Montréal centre-ville, Glenn Castanheira

Quote

Des craintes quant au REM

Parlant d’aménagements, vous comptez parmi les nombreux experts en urbanisme et en architecture qui s’inquiètent des impacts qu’aura la construction des structures aériennes du Réseau express métropolitain (REM), notamment au centre-ville et dans l’est de Montréal. Pourquoi?

Le REM de l’Est, il faut que ça se fasse. Il ne faut pas remettre ça en question. Par contre, il y a un fort risque que la structure surélevée, en plein centre-ville, vienne défigurer le centre-ville. C’est un risque réel qui est basé sur des études de cas. Il n’existe aucun cas semblable, à ma connaissance, où une telle structure n’a pas eu un impact sur la vitalité commerciale limitrophe.

Si on fait l’erreur de faire une structure surélevée au centre-ville, on va faire un mauvais cadeau à ceux qui seront pris à l’enfouir, plus tard, à des coûts infiniment plus élevés que ce que ça nous coûterait maintenant.

 

[SameGuy]

Didn’t realize he’s no longer a lobbyist for hire.

ETA: ah! It was announced just yesterday! 😄

[geraldshaw]

51 minutes ago, LexD said:

While I dont agree with the proposed elevated section on R-L, your comment here is not constructive at all. Its the equivalent of posting a picture of a NYC south Bronx public housing project in every high rise proposal thread on this site and using it as an argument to not build high rises in Montreal.

Apples and oranges above. The  subject is above ground rail not high rises.   You clearly have not ridden on Chicago's LOOP.  The rail  noise, the below the tracks crime, the  destruction of miles of  open air sidewalks and the  loss of 4  floors of open views for  hundreds of beautifully designed buildings (many historic high rises)   over many miles has massively reduced the values of the buildings along the routes and if copied  here will  cause future development risk/uncertainty  as builders/investors wonder where Montreal-LOOP 2  and  3 will be planned.  A  Montreal LOOP will kill high rise development  in the core.

[p_xavier]

il y a 8 minutes, geraldshaw a dit :

Apples and oranges above. The  subject is above ground rail not high rises.   You clearly have not ridden on Chicago's LOOP.  The rail  noise, the below the tracks crime, the  destruction of miles of  open air sidewalks and the  loss of 4  floors of open views for  hundreds of beautifully designed buildings (many historic high rises)   over many miles has massively reduced the values of the buildings along the routes and if copied  here will  cause future development risk/uncertainty  as builders/investors wonder where Montreal-LOOP 2  and  3 will be planned.  A  Montreal LOOP will kill high rise development  in the core.

There are no talks about a Loop in Montreal, stop saying nonsense.  This is not a heavy rail system.  You never went to Vancouver, highrises go where the SkyTrain goes. It attracts investments.

[BilMo]

I think an elevated REM above RL would be less than ideal. Rene Levesque (as wide as it is) is not really that wide. A station would cover a good portion of the street.

If it must be a sky train, I would rather see it in an airier setting, such as along the waterfront and then tapping into the Bonaventure viaduct near the Griffintown station. I am saying this without looking in depth at the idea, though.

[LexD]

16 minutes ago, p_xavier said:

There are no talks about a Loop in Montreal, stop saying nonsense.  This is not a heavy rail system.  You never went to Vancouver, highrises go where the SkyTrain goes. It attracts investments.

Exactly, also Vancouver would be a better comparaison, socio demographics , crime rates , economy, all more comparable with Montreal than Chicago. Not to mention the completely different era they were built in. My issue with the original post was the cut and dry statements of fear mongering that aren't grounded in fact or reality. 

[FrodoMTL]

13 minutes ago, geraldshaw said:

The facts and the reality is that no part of Vancouver's Skytrain runs above ground on a dense core, above a boulevard as narrow as Rene-Levesque. In fact, much of the Vancouver Skytrain lines are now underground or being planned to be underground for future lines. Airport to downtown is over 1/2 underground. New Broadway line being built is underground. Why? For exactly the reasons that the urban planners in Vancouver have declared: that above ground lines in high density office towers and high rises locations are environmental and social failures. Vancouver urban planners often make comparisons to Chicago's LOOP. Good urban planning is not "fear mongering", it is good urban planning. 

 

Oh boy, I see that you are like 60 pages late to this conversation. The above-ground/underground Vancouver comparisons have already been discussed over and over back in early December... Try to take some time to read the previous 164 pages of this thread before rehashing the same topic again?

[SameGuy]

58 minutes ago, p_xavier said:

There are no talks about a Loop in Montreal, stop saying nonsense.  This is not a heavy rail system.  You never went to Vancouver, highrises go where the SkyTrain goes. It attracts investments.

This. Period.

SkyTrain is underground in the very centre of downtown but is at grade and elevated very close to downtown, even in heritage areas. And outside of downtown there is massive real estate investment along the Expo and Millenium lines.

[LexD]

53 minutes ago, geraldshaw said:

The facts and the reality is that no part of Vancouver's  Skytrain runs above ground on a dense core,  above a boulevard as narrow as   Rene-Levesque. In fact, much of the Vancouver  Skytrain   lines are now underground or being planned to be underground for future lines. Airport to downtown is over 1/2 underground. New Broadway line being built is underground. Why? For  exactly the reasons that the urban  planners in Vancouver have declared: that  above ground lines in high density office towers and high rises locations are environmental  and social failures. Vancouver urban planners often make comparisons to Chicago's LOOP.  Good urban planning is not "fear mongering", it is good urban  planning.  For those cheering REM-est above ground --  imagine the Hydro Quebec building with a 20 foot high rail line going by their 5th floor. 

 

Did you even read my comment? I said I dont agree with an above structure.

My point was that saying because dozens are killed in Chicago under an old elevated structured therefore we must not have that here is a blanket statement not grounded in reality and not taking into account the MASSIVE difference in crime rates, socio-economics, demographics and historical inequalities. Your original post was not pertinent or relevant or constructive or even interesting in regards to the topic at hand. Its akin to a NIMBY position...and 99% of NIMBY's no nothing about urban planning. This site is filled with insightful comments from intelligent people. Lets try to keep it that way, claiming worst case scenarios (Chicago) are going to happen here is more suited in a public consultation where citizens express their worst fears. 

You seem intelligent judging by your last response which actually had good points, try keeping that same energy!! lol