Place du SPECTRUM / Complexe SIDEV - 26 étages (2011)

[LindbergMTL]

Qui est le propriétaire de ce terrain, SIDEV?

[Rocco]

Kool Maudit: "i actually hope it remains a shithole. if they make it a temporary square, they'll be tempted to make it a permanent one"

 

Why put a square right next to the biggest square in Montreal, Place des Festival? Some folks here have a strange idea of urban planning.

Modifié 10 décembre 2010 par Rocco

[kool maudit]

there exist people who demand things like "green space," "public space" and "open space" at all times, at all opportunities and regardless of urban context.

 

that's why the weird lot in front of the transat building is a weird lot, for example, and not the sherry-netherland hotel (which is what abuts central park's equivalent of that lot).

[identifiant]

Kool Maudit: "i actually hope it remains a shithole. if they make it a temporary square, they'll be tempted to make it a permanent one"

 

Why put a square right next to the biggest square in Montreal, Place des Festival? Some folks here have a strange idea of urban planning.

 

That's what he means... he'd rather it remained a shithole than become a park. Because if it was ever converted into a park, it would become almost impossible to build on it after.

[Rusty]

But it's funny... the original tenant was a concert space ''le spectrum''... they demolished it and now its nothing. Was the idea here to replace the spectrum with a new exciting building to add to the space... It is the "quartier des spectacles" after all ??? This is what makes me frustrated .

[LindbergMTL]

Triste spectacle en effet, triste sepctacle, d'ou' jaillera un Phénix un de ces jours...

[Cataclaw]

There ought to be guarantees and insurance measures enacted to prevent this sort of thing...

 

In order to have the right to demolish, you have to provide guarantees that you'll begin construction within 2 months. If you don't, you have to pay hefty fines for every day that construction hasn't started. This would prevent developers from demolishing in a speculative way. Only projects that are certain to begin can proceed with demolition.

 

Trop souvent on démolit... et le projet tombe à l'eau, et on reste pogné avec un terrain vacant pendant 20 ans.

[Cyrus]

There ought to be guarantees and insurance measures enacted to prevent this sort of thing...

 

In order to have the right to demolish, you have to provide guarantees that you'll begin construction within 2 months. If you don't, you have to pay hefty fines for every day that construction hasn't started. This would prevent developers from demolishing in a speculative way. Only projects that are certain to begin can proceed with demolition.

 

Trop souvent on démolit... et le projet tombe à l'eau, et on reste pogné avec un terrain vacant pendant 20 ans.

 

But what if the company goes bankrupt... and probably an empty lot would be better than leaving the structure in place in many cases (coughsevillecough ) I mean at least if it was levelled you could park a car or dump snow on it

[Cataclaw]

But what if the company goes bankrupt... and probably an empty lot would be better than leaving the structure in place in many cases (coughsevillecough ) I mean at least if it was levelled you could park a car or dump snow on it

 

That's why we should only let the company demolish when they're ready to build. Demolish today, start building tomorrow. Bens was demolished and replaced almost seamlessly. There was what... 5 days between the end of demolition and the beginning of site prep/construction? This is proof that when everyone's shit is together, you can make it happen.

 

As for the giant hole on Ste-Catherine street... it was much better when the buildings were there. They were old and in poor shape, but it beats the hole we have now. From certain angles that hole looks like a battlefield in some war-torn third world country.

Modifié 10 décembre 2010 par Cataclaw

[identifiant]

That's why we should only let the company demolish when they're ready to build. Demolish today, start building tomorrow. Bens was demolished and replaced almost seamlessly. There was what... 5 days between the end of demolition and the beginning of site prep/construction? This is proof that when everyone's shit is together, you can make it happen.

 

As for the giant hole on Ste-Catherine street... it was much better when the buildings were there. They were old and in poor shape, but it beats the hole we have now. From certain angles that hole looks like a battlefield in some war-torn third world country.

 

Definitely agreed.... the biggest victims of this "demolish first, ask questions after" mentality are Bishop, Crescent and Mackay streets. An insane amount of victorian houses were leveled to make room for a condo project that never happened... and now we're stuck with parking lots. The city is a little quick on the trigger when it comes to handing out demolition permits.

Modifié 10 décembre 2010 par identifiant
typo