Marianopolis - 9 étages (2010)

[Habsfan]

Le Mont-Royal m'empeche de voir le centre-ville... peut-on l'enlever?

 

;) :rotfl:

[Cataclaw]

Le Mont-Royal m'empeche de voir le centre-ville... peut-on l'enlever?

 

LOL

 

:rotfl:

[MTLskyline]

Developers can benefit from proper public input

McGill College Ave. has a lesson for the group that wants to build condos on the Marianopolis College site

 

DINU BUMBARU and JUDITH KAVANAGH

Freelance

 

Tuesday, August 11, 2009

 

Last May, Montreal's Public Consultation Office held well-attended public hearings on a developer's project to transform the former site of the Sulpician Fathers Philosophy College and until recently Marianopolis College. This large estate off Côte des Neiges Rd. forms part of the Mount Royal Heritage Site.

 

The property was sold to the developers by the Sulpician Fathers, reportedly without conditions, for about

 

$46 million. What is proposed are condo towers, townhouses, and conversion of the college building. More than 60 citizens and organizations appeared at the hearings to present their views on the developer's request to change planning and zoning rules.

 

The report following these hearings is due this week. Meanwhile the developer's lobbyists and some commentators have been portraying those opposed to the project as unreasonable. Yet constructive criticism in an orderly forum is a healthy process. Planning objectives and rules protecting heritage sites are real assets for Montreal's development, not bureaucratic shackles.

 

Remember that until the 1990s, Montreal suffered from a vacuum of planning rules and vision. This gave the city terrific construction statistics and tax revenue but also terrible urban scars. Clear development rules, a presumption against "spot zoning," and the legitimate right of the public interest to be weighed make for better urban development and long-term value. To ignore these rules or to be too hasty in making exceptions has been shown by bitter experience to be bad for the city.

 

But there is also some positive precedent for the kind of comment and opposition this project has generated, which should be kept in mind when considering where we go following the public consultation's recommendations.

 

A developer sought special planning privilege 25 years ago, rushing to build a shopping complex and concert hall on McGill College Ave., blocking the iconic view of the McGill campus and Mount Royal. An unexpected coalition of Heritage Montreal, the Board of Trade, investors, and other parties fed up with hasty municipal decision-making rallied and the developer - Cadillac Fairview - agreed to take time for proper public consultation, at the end of which it modified its project substantially. The project as built maintained the avenue's vista and created an enviable public space.

 

That case demonstrated that things had to change. Montreal needed a clear vision and effective rules to provide the stable planning environment that generates quality development. In 1992 Montreal adopted a master plan that booming cities like Sydney, Australia, took as a model for their own development. This was updated in 2004, and was complemented by 2005's Heritage Policy and the 2009 Protection Plan for Mount Royal, all of which benefited from extensive public consultation. Our master plan is now our Magna Carta, a tool for genuine development that finds room for the common good.

 

How does this history lesson apply to the Sulpician/Marianopolis site? The developer is asking to by-pass the master plan's institutional zoning and protection rules to make its investment profitable.

 

Perhaps this particular purchase price was simply too high, carrying an unreasonable risk. Why should the city, representing the public in protecting Mount Royal and its built heritage, allow a project that in its density and siting of new construction distorts and betrays the qualities of this wonderful property? Why should the public, in effect, bear the cost of the development risk because a buyer has paid too much for what he can do under current rules? The best real-estate transactions and the best urban development come out of realistic, well-considered processes that respect well-developed zoning rules.

 

We all agree Montreal needs creative developers to enrich the city's heritage with sensitive and inspiring projects, including converting heritage sites like this one. Yet, to avoid inappropriate development we also need to be able to rely on our city and provincial authorities to hold to their promise and their duty of protecting heritage.

 

The master plan is legally required to be updated in 2009. Municipal politicians are now in election mode. Montreal has a lot more to lose by rushing projects like this one than by taking the time to turn it into something more respectful.

 

The McGill College Ave. project could have been a permanent curse, but instead is a real asset, demonstrating positive sustainable development - because we took the time to get it right.

 

Dinu Bumbaru is policy director of Heritage Montreal. Judith Kavanagh is active in the Cedar Avenue Residents Committee.

© The Gazette (Montreal) 2009

http://www2.canada.com/montrealgazette/features/viewpoints/story.html?id=e74efd2e-a59d-4427-8754-36a8a2761ae3

[Cataclaw]

It's sheer ignorance for people to claim this project is "disrespectful".

 

+Trees are preserved (and even increased in total number, more will be planted!)

+Views are preserved (contrary to what the NIMBYs claim, only a tiny sliver of view is blocked and only from a very specific angle. For all intents and purposes, the views are saved)

 

What more do you want?

 

What kind of fool could spew such bullshit?

 

Oh.. wait, it was written by Dinu Bumbaru. Nevermind.

 

 

Does anybody have this guy's email? I feel like giving him a piece of my mind (respectfully and professionally, of course.)

 

Actually i feel like inviting him to mtlurb.com so we can debate here with him, maybe knock some sense into the guy!

[identifiant]

That case demonstrated that things had to change. Montreal needed a clear vision and effective rules to provide the stable planning environment that generates quality development. In 1992 Montreal adopted a master plan that booming cities like Sydney, Australia, took as a model for their own development. This was updated in 2004, and was complemented by 2005's Heritage Policy and the 2009 Protection Plan for Mount Royal, all of which benefited from extensive public consultation. Our master plan is now our Magna Carta, a tool for genuine development that finds room for the common good.

 

Remember the early 90's, when almost half of montreal's downtown core was built? But yeah Dinu, thanks to this great plan Sydney has continued to grow while we've stalled.

I've agreed with Bumbaru so many times (after all preserving old buildings and keeping a sense of urban planning is sooo important), but then he gets hung up on unimportant projects like these just to get publicity.

 

Did I hear him protest about what they're doing to the Ritz? Or about that abandonned 17th century building (seen in this thread http://www.mtlurb.com/forums/showthread.php?p=65858#post65858)?

Nope, but here he is spitting on an excellent project, just because it's (somewhat) in the news.

 

Sadly, he behaves like a politician while we need someone who actually cares about Montreal doing his job.

[Dominic723]

Là s'en est devenu ridicule l'histoire du Marianopolis qui est trop haut et cache la fucking vue sur le mont-royal, s'il voudrait la voir la criss de montagne qu'ils aillent à côté du Marianopolis pour la voir ou en arrière.

 

Heille c'est totalement RIDICULE que la ville de Montréal ne fasse rien, si il faudrait écouté Bumbaru et les amis du Mont-Royal il faudrait raser la métropole au grand complet et les banlieues, parce qu'à longueil, les immeubles du métro et le pont nous cache la vue.

[LED]

Why should the city, representing the public in protecting Mount Royal and its built heritage, allow a project that in its density and siting of new construction distorts and betrays the qualities of this wonderful property? Why should the public, in effect, bear the cost of the development risk because a buyer has paid too much for what he can do under current rules?

 

Il va tu chercher ses arguments loins! C'est complétement distortionné comme propos...Quand est-ce que le public paie quoique ce soit pour un projet privé. Les sulpiciens qui gardaient l'endroit public on fait du cash en vendant au privé et personne d'autre (public) ne voulait payer. C'est donc le privé tel que Bumbaru le dit lui-même qui a payé chère. Et selon lui le fait qu'ils veuillent offrir plus de surface pour plus de rentabilité pour acceuillir plus de contribuable (qui eu aussi seront des payeur de taxes et feront partis du public) eménage à cet endroit. On dit que c'est un endroit magnifique mais en ce moment pas tous les bâtiment sont bien entretenus et personne ne visite l'endroit, alors qui paie le prix au public? Si il n'y a pas suffisament de logement construit c'est tous les autres résidents de l'endroit qui paieront encore plus chère pour leur logis. Je vais écouter ces niaiserie lorsqu'on proposera une solution équitable et résonable au niveau des affaires et de l'héritage. So far seul le promoteur à fait une proposition censé.

[Habsfan]

Je suis bien heureux de lire que je ne suis pas le seul qui trouve Bumbaru déraisonnable!

 

Il cherche de l'attention comme le petit chien qu'il est!

[etienne]

Mount Royal condo project too large: report

By Jason Magder, The GazetteAugust 11, 2009 3:13 PMComments (15)

 

 

MONTREAL – Montreal’s public consultation office has recommended developers scale back a housing project planned for the former campus of Marianopolis College.

 

In a report made public Tuesday, the Office de consultation publique de Montréal said the project is an important one because it’s the first test of the city’s Mount Royal protection policy, adopted last April.

 

Développement CATO Inc. plans a $300 million project to build 325 condominium units, townhouses and single-family homes on the 6.5 hectare site.

 

Plans call for the facade of the former college, built in 1894, to be preserved, and to be turned into condominiums. Several multi-storey townhouses would be built around the former college, and there would be an underground parking lot built. The college’s tennis courts would be turned into 10 luxury single-family homes, which would be worth several million dollars.

 

The office said the developers, who bought the land from the Sulpician priests last year for $46 million, wish to increase land use by 70 per cent. While developers say this would still leave 85 per cent of the site undeveloped, the office said the density would be too high for the area.

 

“The commission doesn’t believe this increase conforms to the message of moderation mentioned in the city’s protection policy,” the report states.

 

Several residents who attended consultations said they were upset that the buildings would block the view of the city skyline from Mount Royal Park.

 

The former college is located on Côte des Neiges Rd., at the corner of Cedar Ave. – directly across the street from Mount Royal Park. It has pedestrian access with staircases on either side of the building.

 

source

[Cataclaw]

Yes, thank you etienne for posting old news. We already know what the OCPM report says.