rive-sud Pont Samuel-De Champlain

[Cataclaw]

Fat cities with highways is just too deep into correlation vs causation as you know...

 

Actually it's not. Like i said, go look online, you'll find plenty of studies. They've even followed people around for years and examined their habits. Suburbs contribute to obesity. It's a fact.

 

 

 

Why not let people make those decisions for themselves? Maybe the bad thing is better for them than the alternative. Who are we to judge?

 

Who or what is to judge? The mountain of facts, studies, evidence and proof that point to the conclusions i've listed. Dude, no disrespect, I like you even though we often disagree on stuff, but i've been studying this stuff my whole life. If you want to believe that it isn't society's business to make up laws for itself, that's fine. I respect your opinion and your ideological beliefs, but don't tell me the stuff i'm talking about, the arguments i've made and the facts i've pointed to are negligible, inconclusive or merely "causation vs correlation". They don't create 4-year university programs around the world for stuff that isn't true or well researched. I know it's not your intent, like I said I think you're an ok guy who isn't malicious or anything, but it's like you're insulting my field by claiming that what thousands of urban planners have studied in depth for years is flat out wrong.

 

That's like walking up to a doctor and telling him: "your knowledge on bones is wrong."

The stuff i'm describing to you is well researched, proven, understood and derives from the consensus among the experts and professionals that work in this field every day. You might not like the facts I'm presenting to you, but they are facts. You don't have to agree (hell, people don't believe in evolution even though that's a fact too) but don't discredit on my field of study and work.

 

Furthermore, I'm not going to ride transit. And I want to live in a house with a garage and some land under it. Considering I am paying for it, that gives me the right to get what I want...

 

That's your right, that's your choice, and I totally respect that. But your choice is one that is costly to society as a whole, so don't be surprised if in the future society starts taxing you more as a result. Also, don't be surprised when gas hits 2$/L because that's coming in the next 3 years too, but that's a different matter.

Modifié 27 octobre 2011 par Cataclaw

[Né entre les rapides]

Qu'est-ce qu'on essaie de "prouver" ici? L'application d'une théorie générale à un cas comme l'agglomération de Montréal avec sa géographie complexe est assûrément problématique. Entretemps, sur un mode quelque peu humoristique, je me demande quel serait l'impact de l'absence (par disparition mystérieuse) du pont Champlain, et même de tous les ponts reliant l'île de Montréal, sur l'embonpoint--ou la maigreur-- des urbains et des suburbains, étant entendu que dans ce contexte particulier, par convention, les résidants de l'île de M constituent le groupe des "urbains". (Mais c'est vrai qu'il pourrait y avoir plus de "jardins communautaires" en lieu et place des "autoroutes urbaines")

[Cataclaw]

Qu'est-ce qu'on essaie de "prouver" ici? L'application d'une théorie générale à un cas comme l'agglomération de Montréal avec sa géographie complexe est assûrément problématique.

 

Problématique oui, impossible non. On doit le faire.

[Cyrus]

But what would it give us? Vancouver has crappy cross-river mobility, and plenty "mixed-income" areas, and from a social perspective, it's long and away the most fucked-up city in Canada.

[Cataclaw]

But what would it give us? Vancouver has crappy cross-river mobility, and plenty "mixed-income" areas, and from a social perspective, it's long and away the most fucked-up city in Canada.

 

Well, I would argue that Vancouver is probably one of the best cities in the world to live in. The studies seem to say so as well, considering Vancouver consistently ranks at the top in terms of quality of life.

Vancouver does have reduced mobility, but not reduced accessibility. Vancouver actually has very high accessibility. Mobility means how far you can go. Accessibility means how much stuff you have access to.

Scientists and experts have discovered that there is such a thing as too much mobility, and they're trying to reduce mobility in cities around the world in order to increase accessibility. It may seem counterintuitive, just like induced demand, but these are demonstrably true processes.

 

 

As for what It would give us, i've explained a lot already. You just don't really want to believe what I'm saying, even if it's true and proven, because it's contrary to your attitudes and ideologies.

 

-Agricultural land saved from sprawl

-Improved health among population

-Better environment

-Sustainable

-Collect more taxable revenue

-Save massively on infrastructure maintenance costs

-Increase social capital

-Reduce negative impacts of monoculture settlements

-Reduce smog

-Improve transit mode share and overall urban walkability and quality of life

-Save a ton on health care costs

-Improved economic conditions

-Fewer injuries and fatalities due to car accidents

-Better social intermixing and positive externalities

-People that don't have cars (kids, seniors, the disabled and the poor) have increased accessibility and equity.

-Cities with better quality of life and high accessibility tend to attract more businesses and perform well

-Improved safety and reduced crime (eyes on the street, mixed use means activity at all hours of the day)

-Stronger social and economic linkages as well as community organizing for positive effect

-Improve quality of life overall!

 

It's just the tip of the iceburg.

Modifié 29 octobre 2011 par Cataclaw

[Né entre les rapides]

Oh! I just love this nuance between "accessibility" and "mobility"--not unconsequential--deserves further discussions.

 

BTW "burg"= village, settlement; "berg"=mountain. So that must be "iceBerg", unless you want to refer to the nickname of some unknown far-northern community (I do not know of any far-southern community, as it would have to be in the Antarctic to meet the "ice" criteria; ps ok perhaps in the Tierra del Fuego at the southern tip of So. Am.)

 

As to Vancouver: City of Van (except Downtown East Side), as well as the suburbs of North Van and West Van: very desirable indeed; but the outer suburbs, not so sure.

[Cataclaw]

Oh! I just love this nuance between "accessibility" and "mobility"--not unconsequential--deserves further discussions.

 

BTW "burg"= village, settlement; "berg"=mountain. So that must be "iceBerg", unless you want to refer to the nickname of some unknown far-northern community (I do not know of any far-southern community, as it would have to be in the Antarctic to meet the "ice" criteria; ps ok perhaps in the Tierra del Fuego at the southern tip of So. Am.)

 

As to Vancouver: City of Van (except Downtown East Side), as well as the suburbs of North Van and West Van: very desirable indeed; but the outer suburbs, not so sure.

 

Accessibility vs. mobility are key concepts in urban planning that are explored at length. There's a lot of stuff online about this too if you're interested.

 

Thanks for correcting my typo, because, you know, nobody in the history of the world has ever made one of those before.

[Habsfan]

Well, I would argue that Vancouver is probably one of the best cities in the world to live in. The studies seem to say so as well, considering Vancouver consistently ranks at the top in terms of quality of life.

 

Not that I like playing Devil's advocate, but if Montreal was like Vancouver, I wouldn'T be able to afford a condo. When you consider that the average home costs close to 700,000$...do you know what the monthly payments are on a 700,000$ mortgage? (it's over 3200$ per month) At those prices, I'd be forced to live in a 325 sq foot closet. I'm sorry, but I'm a human being, not a fvcking Rat! I need a minimum of space.

 

So yes, Vancouver might have a few things in its favor, but its real estate prices are horrible!

 

Once again Cataclaw, I agree with most of what you are saying, but you are comparing Montreal to cities like Atlanta and Houston...which is unfair. The entire Montreal Metropolitan area is about 4000 sq KM's, whereas those two sprawly cities in the U.S. are twice, if not three times the size of our city. Montreal is not gonna become like those cities just because we might add a lane or two on the Champlain bridge!

Modifié 12 novembre 2011 par Habsfan

[Cyrus]

Well, I would argue that Vancouver is probably one of the best cities in the world to live in. The studies seem to say so as well, considering Vancouver consistently ranks at the top in terms of quality of life.

Vancouver does have reduced mobility, but not reduced accessibility. Vancouver actually has very high accessibility. Mobility means how far you can go. Accessibility means how much stuff you have access to.

Scientists and experts have discovered that there is such a thing as too much mobility, and they're trying to reduce mobility in cities around the world in order to increase accessibility. It may seem counterintuitive, just like induced demand, but these are demonstrably true processes.

 

 

As for what It would give us, i've explained a lot already. You just don't really want to believe what I'm saying, even if it's true and proven, because it's contrary to your attitudes and ideologies.

 

-Agricultural land saved from sprawl

-Improved health among population

-Better environment

-Sustainable

-Collect more taxable revenue

-Save massively on infrastructure maintenance costs

-Increase social capital

-Reduce negative impacts of monoculture settlements

-Reduce smog

-Improve transit mode share and overall urban walkability and quality of life

-Save a ton on health care costs

-Improved economic conditions

-Fewer injuries and fatalities due to car accidents

-Better social intermixing and positive externalities

-People that don't have cars (kids, seniors, the disabled and the poor) have increased accessibility and equity.

-Cities with better quality of life and high accessibility tend to attract more businesses and perform well

-Improved safety and reduced crime (eyes on the street, mixed use means activity at all hours of the day)

-Stronger social and economic linkages as well as community organizing for positive effect

-Improve quality of life overall!

 

It's just the tip of the iceburg.

 

Accessibility vs mobility isn't very useful. I don't want to go to "a restaurant", I want to go to a specific one, and if I showed up at a random office, the employees and my boss would both be very confused I really wouldn't consider "accessibility" as anything comparable to mobility.

 

Toronto and Calgary have both featured prominently in "livability" indicies and they have roads all over the place.

 

I've spent the better part of the past month with a few people from Vancouver. The stories are really shocking - friends destroying their lives and families via drug abuse, crack-addled whores sneaking into their shop while working and stealing random metal pieces to hawk for drugs (and getting swiftly tackled and beat up), addicts promising to "share" a hit then taking the whole thing and then fighting, etc etc. And of course all the gunplay in the streets out by Surrey, etc. In Montreal we have some issues but nothing like that. From any social perspective this is not a nice place in any way. If you have a million bucks and park your Mercedes in the parkade under your penthouse, and you keep the windows up, I guess it is okay.

 

How do you reduce injuries and fatalities due to car accidents by providing inadequate road infrastructure? If anything this is increasing injuries and fatalities. Just for one example, look at how improving Hwy 175 has turned it from one of Quebec's deadliest roads to a road with, so far, no deaths at all. Even in urban areas, on the beginning of congestion it frequently sparks a serious accident, and even during the jam, frequently a fender-bender. When a freeway is working at a level B or C or even D the accidents are very rare.

 

I fail to see any reason a transit mode share is desirable in its own right... it is like people wearing blue socks instead of white socks...

 

Saturday's edition of the Toronto Star had an interesting article on physical activity of residents in "urban" and "suburban" areas. They cited some studies that showed that children had the highest physical activity in suburban areas with loopy-doopy street alignments (presumably due to street hockey and etc) and the least in areas with a typical urban grid (presumably due to the traffic). However, they found that adults worked in the opposite manner (walking to stores, etc). I wouldn't normally read the Star but a tout next to the "occupy Toronto" campsite offered me a free copy I dunno if it is available online.

 

Don't take too much offense at my comments, I didn't use any "fuckin urban planner" or anything like the stuff I get every day from shop guys as an engineer, and we actually make things that work F=ma is demonstratively true. I would argue that any aspect of any social phenomenon is not demonstratively true to that effect. It is like the "rational market" concept so frequently misunderstood - the free market is generally but not always rational.

 

Of course my viewpoint is shaped by my own ideology, but of course, the only way to avoid ideology is to be bereft of ideas. People throw the word around in a way similar to "accent", like "he speaks with an accent but I don't" But one aspect I think you are missing from my argument is that you say it is better to be one way, while I don't like basically anything of that way. All the advantages you speak of seem to me as disadvantages. It is like a cure worse than the disease...

Modifié 31 octobre 2011 par Cyrus

[monctezuma]

Faire du nouveau pont Champlain une oeuvre d'art

 

Publié le 10 novembre 2011 à 09h50 | Mis à jour le 10 novembre 2011 à 09h50

 

André Dubuc

 

La Presse

 

Une personnalité de la scène immobilière commerciale a partagé hier son rêve de confier à Santiago Calatrava ou un autre architecte de renommée internationale le soin de dessiner le futur pont Champlain et d'en faire ainsi le symbole à l'échelle de la planète de la créativité montréalaise.

 

Prenant la parole au lunch du symposium de la section montréalaise de l'association des gestionnaires de projets Project Management Institute, Stephen Leopold, président du conseil du courtier Avison Young Québec, a demandé aux 400 personnes dans la salle de l'hôtel Omni de se faire les porte-voix de son idée de tenir un concours international d'architecture pour le nouveau pont Champlain.

 

«Montréal a besoin d'un symbole qui met en valeur sa créativité, son dynamisme, sa main-d'oeuvre qualifiée et son intérêt en tant que plaque tournante commerciale. Cette occasion représente un énorme enjeu pour la communauté des affaires, les possibilités d'emplois et les communautés artistiques de Montréal», a-t-il dit.

 

Légende vivante de l'industrie immobilière, Stephen Leopold a signé l'un des chapitres du livre de Donald Trump: The 100 Best Pieces of Real Estate Advice I Ever Received.

 

On l'a déjà surnommé Forrest Gump en raison de sa capacité presque involontaire à pénétrer les milieux les plus fermés à l'image du personnage de fiction interprété par Tom Hanks dans le film de 1994. Entre autres faits d'armes, il a été enquêteur au comité du Sénat américain dans le dossier du Watergate. Par la suite, il a occupé le siège de gouverneur du Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt Institute. Stephen Leopold a aussi été adjoint exécutif de l'ex-premier ministre Brian Mulroney à son premier essai à la direction du parti progressiste-conservateur.

 

Pour ceux qui s'inquiéteraient du surcoût associé à un pont à la silhouette audacieuse, le conférencier fait miroiter les retombées touristiques. «La différence entre la médiocrité et un pont de classe mondiale sera plus que compensée en dollars touristiques supplémentaires et en avantages intangibles. Pensez Golden Gate!»

 

Outre le Golden Gate, M. Leopold a évoqué le pont Zakim de Boston, le viaduc de Millau, en France, et le Storebaelt au Danemark.

 

Le vétéran de la scène immobilière, qui a passé 17 ans à New York avant de revenir à Montréal récemment, suggère la nomination de ce qu'il appelle un tsar des infrastructures, lequel serait responsable de concilier les intérêts des trois ordres de gouvernement ainsi que du secteur privé dans la réalisation de ce qui sera, selon ses propres voeux, une véritable oeuvre d'art.