54 nouveaux manoirs seront construits à Brossard

[GoMontreal]

The houses out there are for the "Nouveau riches" types. They are all really tacky. If someone wants a fancy (yet classy) house on the south shore the best choices are either in St. Lambert or Old Longueuil.

 

Just take a look at the project's website. Where are the trees? Where are the sidewalks?: http://www.domainesrivesud.com/

 

No taste...

 

 

 

Aww puke! That house is so butt ugly. But hey, it's a free world (well sort of...) and they should be allowed to build whatever house they want.

[cjb]

Aww puke! That house is so butt ugly. But hey, it's a free world (well sort of...) and they should be allowed to build whatever house they want.

 

I biked through this neighborhood many times and it's really another world. I really wonder who likes to live there.

Having the money to buy such a house, I would probably buy a big triplex in Rosemont or Plateau....

But eyh not all investors are intelligent !!

[WestAust]

a lot of the habs player now live on the south shore, including that area since it's close to their training center

[Cataclaw]

Haha, that's funny because for me, it's the opposite. I don't like the hotel and the associated building but I'm fine with the rest.

 

Why would you favor low-density suburban development?

 

It's contrary to everything this forum is about!

[GoMontreal]

Why would you favor low-density suburban development?

 

It's contrary to everything this forum is about!

 

Ok so you speak for everyone now? I was not aware that I needed to agree to the 'pensée unique' to post here.

 

I favor free-market principles in everything (supply and demand). The developers saw a need/want and they supplied. It is obvious that the dix30 development, whether it is the commercial or residential part, has been a huge success. Point à la ligne!

 

Whether you like it or not, people wanted those houses and people want to shop in the commercial part. It looks nice/fine and it's conveniently located. The customer is always right, right? Then if the customer wants a house like the ugly one above and is willing to pay for it, then so be it. Who are you to think that you (or bureaucrats) can decide the size, location, colour, style of a house for someone else? If so, why stop there. Say I don't particularly like american cars but you do. But I, self-important me, know better than you so I'll make the rules. Only german cars are allowed.

 

Makes no sense!

 

Do I favor low-density suburban development? Not necessarily. What I favor is whatever the hell fills the customer's needs, and whoever fills my needs will get my money and it should be the same for everyone. If you don't like dix30, then go to champlain mall, but don't take dix30 away from those who like it. I don't need or want to feel like a sinner everytime I go to dix30 and certainly don't want to check in with the priests for the church of single-minded urban planning and anti-sprawl everytime either.

 

Disclosure: I don't live in dix30, I go there sometimes and some other times I go to champlain mall.

[Cataclaw]

Ok so you speak for everyone now? I was not aware that I needed to agree to the 'pensée unique' to post here.

 

I favor free-market principles in everything (supply and demand). The developers saw a need/want and they supplied. It is obvious that the dix30 development, whether it is the commercial or residential part, has been a huge success. Point à la ligne!

 

Whether you like it or not, people wanted those houses and people want to shop in the commercial part. It looks nice/fine and it's conveniently located. The customer is always right, right? Then if the customer wants a house like the ugly one above and is willing to pay for it, then so be it. Who are you to think that you (or bureaucrats) can decide the size, location, colour, style of a house for someone else? If so, why stop there. Say I don't particularly like american cars but you do. But I, self-important me, know better than you so I'll make the rules. Only german cars are allowed.

 

Makes no sense!

 

Do I favor low-density suburban development? Not necessarily. What I favor is whatever the hell fills the customer's needs, and whoever fills my needs will get my money and it should be the same for everyone. If you don't like dix30, then go to champlain mall, but don't take dix30 away from those who like it. I don't need or want to feel like a sinner everytime I go to dix30 and certainly don't want to check in with the priests for the church of single-minded urban planning and anti-sprawl everytime either.

 

Disclosure: I don't live in dix30, I go there sometimes and some other times I go to champlain mall.

 

Whoa whoa whoa, slow down there buddy. You're going way overboard. What the hell?! I never said any of those things.

 

All i said was: "Why would you favor low-density suburban development? It's contrary to everything this forum is about!" in response to your apparent statement claiming you liked the big box stores and parking lots that were popping up instead of the high-density part of Dix30. Regardless of market forces, this clearly suggests that given an apparent choice, you prefer the low-density. If my assessment is incorrect, do be so kind as to clarify.

 

Might i remind you this forum is called "MTLURB" - the urb being a reference to the word urban. I've been here long enough to know that the majority of people around here are pro-urban and pro-city. If you like sprawling low-density developments, that's fine with you. Most of us prefer highrises and high density. Fact.

 

Furthermore, you mistakenly allude to a connection between urban planning and the denial of the free market. Urban planning is a form of regulation. Planning is designed to optimize space and create cities that are more livable. If the demand is there for ultra-spread-out low density development, so be it, let there be some. There is no denial... but it ought to be zoned in more strategic areas, so in essence, regulated. Which is what urban planning is. And thank god for it, lest we be living in an Atlanta-style city with a density so low it takes you 40 minutes just to walk to the closest corner store.

 

Anyway, I would appreciate it if you stopped making disrespectful false assertions on my behalf. Thank you.

Modifié 9 janvier 2010 par Cataclaw

[Habsfan]

Let's not forget that There are way more Condo's in teh Dix30 neighborhood then there are single family homes. I have a few friends who live in teh Quartier Parisien neighborhood (just west of Dix30) and it sold out in 2 years( I think there are over 1000 condos just in that neighborhood!

 

What's good about this entire area is that there are single family homes and Condos. If you have the money and prefer a 2 illion$ home with 4000 sq feet on 15,000 sq ft of land, then you can build there. If you prefer a condo, you can find something there as well!

 

Not everyone likes to live in Rosemont in a triplex with noisy neighbors above and below you!

[GoMontreal]

Whoa whoa whoa, slow down there buddy. You're going way overboard. What the hell?! I never said any of those things.

 

But that is what you we're implying...

 

All i said was: "Why would you favor low-density suburban development? It's contrary to everything this forum is about!" in response to your apparent statement claiming you liked the big box stores and parking lots that were popping up instead of the high-density part of Dix30. Regardless of market forces, this clearly suggests that given an apparent choice, you prefer the low-density. If my assessment is incorrect, do be so kind as to clarify.

 

Actually, I don't like the esthetic design of the hotel and attached building, it has nothing to do with density.

 

Might i remind you this forum is called "MTLURB" - the urb being a reference to the word urban. I've been here long enough to know that the majority of people around here are pro-urban and pro-city. If you like sprawling low-density developments, that's fine with you. Most of us prefer highrises and high density. Fact.

 

Actually, I prefer high-density developments, but to me, it's not an ideology. I find dense, mixed-use, tall, and complex developments really interesting. I love it when it's connected to underground pedestrian tunnels as well as metro stations. But, if you ask me what's more practical in my busy life, if I need to go to Future Shop, I have no interest in going to the Pepsi forum one where I have to find a parking spot, pay for it, walk to the building, walk up two stories, get my stuff and go back. I prefer going to a dix30 type future shop where I park 100ft from the door, walk in and get my stuff and am out of there. It's much more practical.

 

Furthermore, you mistakenly allude to a connection between urban planning and the denial of the free market. Urban planning is a form of regulation. Planning is designed to optimize space and create cities that are more livable. If the demand is there for ultra-spread-out low density development, so be it, let there be some. There is no denial... but it ought to be zoned in more strategic areas, so in essence, regulated. Which is what urban planning is. And thank god for it, lest we be living in an Atlanta-style city with a density so low it takes you 40 minutes just to walk to the closest corner store.

 

You said it exactly, urban planning is a form of regulation. That's what I don't like. I don't like central planning, and I don't like regulation. Regulation kills innovation and it screws up the free-market. Having developers do stuff like dix30 makes them learn from their (as well as others') mistakes and make a better one next time. If we are not allowed to fail, we don't learn.

 

Today, we are so afraid of repeating past mistakes like Decarie and Ville-Marie tunnel, for example, (which I don't think were mistakes but whatever...) that we spend decades and millions of dollars on analysis paralysis and in the process kill the economy.

 

Instead of trying so hard to cover all bases and avoid all possible mistakes, we need to instead go ahead and try stuff and fix the mistakes as we go or else we never go forward.

[Malek]

Ok so you speak for everyone now? I was not aware that I needed to agree to the 'pensée unique' to post here.

 

I favor free-market principles in everything (supply and demand). The developers saw a need/want and they supplied. It is obvious that the dix30 development, whether it is the commercial or residential part, has been a huge success. Point à la ligne!

 

Whether you like it or not, people wanted those houses and people want to shop in the commercial part. It looks nice/fine and it's conveniently located. The customer is always right, right? Then if the customer wants a house like the ugly one above and is willing to pay for it, then so be it. Who are you to think that you (or bureaucrats) can decide the size, location, colour, style of a house for someone else? If so, why stop there. Say I don't particularly like american cars but you do. But I, self-important me, know better than you so I'll make the rules. Only german cars are allowed.

 

Makes no sense!

 

Do I favor low-density suburban development? Not necessarily. What I favor is whatever the hell fills the customer's needs, and whoever fills my needs will get my money and it should be the same for everyone. If you don't like dix30, then go to champlain mall, but don't take dix30 away from those who like it. I don't need or want to feel like a sinner everytime I go to dix30 and certainly don't want to check in with the priests for the church of single-minded urban planning and anti-sprawl everytime either.

 

Disclosure: I don't live in dix30, I go there sometimes and some other times I go to champlain mall.

 

Très bien dit, moins le ton qui aurait pu être plus neutre.

 

Bref, sur un autre ordre d'idée et pour clarifier ça une fois pour toute.

 

Si vous croyez que urb c'est urbain, bien c'est un pays libre, mais savez-vous ce que ça veut dire au moins?

 

Urbain ne veut pas dire seulement ville dense à la plateau Mont-Royal, c'est tout ce qui est non rural, et pour nous, ça inclus St-Jérôme à St-Julie, Vaudreuil à Repentigny, et toutes les nuances qui s'y retrouvent.

 

Voici deux définitions du mot tiré du Grand Dictionnaire:

 

Définition :

Agglomération d'une certaine importance, à l'intérieur de laquelle la plupart des habitants ont leur travail dans le commerce, l'industrie ou l'administration.

 

Définition :

Qui se rapporte à la ville, à l'agglomération humaine concentrée dans la cité, par opposition à ce qui est rural.

 

Et oui ça inclus les Mansions grandeur Jean Coutu, petits pois roses en option

[Cataclaw]

Interesting Malek, but that's not the point. The point is not what urban means.

 

I think a recap is in order:

1. GoMontreal made a comment that suggested he favored low-density sprawl over high-density development.

2. I found it puzzling and called him out on it.

3. He clarified that he doesn't prefer low-density, on the contrary, but he happens to not like the architecture of the Alt hotel and the surrounding buildings which is why he made the comment for this particular case. He also favors the free market, but if market forces are even, he prefers high density. (At least that's what i understood his reply to be, correct me if i'm wrong)

 

So there we have it, there's no real disagreement here. Case closed i guess.

 

Besides, as for low-density, i have no problems with medium-low density developments (semi-détachés, even single family detached homes. Shit, i live in one. I'd be a big time hypocrite if i trashed all low-density development. I just don't want to see only that kind of development (likewise, if Montreal was only highrises like Sao Paulo, i wouldn't necessarily find it too appealing either)

 

Regarding low/high density, what i'm sayng is, is that if all other factors are equal or if all other considerations are discounted... in a pure battle between high density or low density, i think we can agree we like to see high density. Except for a few weirdos here (), i don't see many MtlUrbers complaining when projects are too dense or too tall. (Quite the contrary!) See? That's really all it is, gentlemen. Don't take things out of context

Modifié 10 janvier 2010 par Cataclaw