ville-marie Square Dorchester et Place du Canada: réaménagement

[Cyrus]

Who said anything about office space? Condo sales are doing quite well. Mixed-use towers are the way to go. (Retail, office, hotel, residential all in one)

 

But mixed-use towers are unprofessional-looking for clients, if I want to see a consultant and pay him big bucks, I don't want to see anybody who isn't wearing a suit and tie Look at any of the big office towers, the "e-commerce" on Rene-Levesque, or the CIBC building, etc, when you walk into the lobby, you see they mean business and work is going to get done

 

Mixed-use can work pretty well for a residential building, I know personally that having a depanneur on the ground floor of your apartment is pretty kickass and convenient. (what did you say guys? No more beer? wait 5 minutes ) The depanneur is also very convenient for a hotel, but a combined hotel-condo type development might be annoying to residents and visitors alike)

 

Swiiiiiing aaaand a miss.

 

Nobody ever suggested demand would materialize. That isn't the point. That isn't even close to the point.

The point is: in order to optimize use of expensive infrastructure, it's worthwhile to build high and build dense.

If a developer wants to build 3 towers of 13 floors each, he's going to have to build one tower of 40 floors instead in order to meet the height/density requirements set in place to optimize the use of local infrastructure.

 

But you are only talking about the metro, which is only one thing, and a small thing. The roads are small, parking availability is difficult (and you never know what kind of hoops the city would give the developer), and water infrastructure in Montreal makes Kabul look like Dubai

 

Building a 40 floor building is very expensive, imposing rules on developers basically blocks them only from making decisions that are suitable for the situation, since if the decision was bad, they wouldn't invest...

Modifié 24 juin 2010 par Cyrus

[pedepy]

saturnus: cataclaw's point (and mine, as i've stated the same thing before), is not that setting a minimum density point for certain lots would somehow magically create demand for development; it's just saying that it insures you get the most return on expensive infrastructure that was initially planned to accommodate that kind of density. metro lines, in particular.

 

of course there is always the risk that would cause development will leave the downtown core if it becomes too expensive to build for office space that won't be leased in two decades.. this is why i think the city should offer aggressive tax breaks and other incentives to try and plug the central empty lots with high density developments, before anything else. in other words, to make it much more enticing for a developer to choose to build a 150m mixed use complex on one of those lots over a bunch of condo towers and a mall outside the city centre.

 

when all lots have been built, then they can raise taxes like crazy, if they want to. and the eventual tax revenue will be much higher if the area is built alot denser. so in the end they might not loose anything from it at all !

 

i think it's been often said before, that while there haven't been that many highrises built here recently, real estate development is very much alive nonetheless. maybe it just needs a way to get concentrated. think of it as a kind of "development green belt".

 

by the way cataclaw, 500m from a metro station is pretty much anywhere, downtown ....

Modifié 24 juin 2010 par pedepy

[Cyrus]

saturnus: cataclaw's point (and mine, as i've stated the same thing before), is not that setting a minimum density point for certain lots would somehow magically create demand for development; it's just saying that it insures you get the most return on expensive infrastructure that was initially planned to accommodate that kind of density. metro lines, in particular.

 

of course there is always the risk that would cause development will leave the downtown core if it becomes too expensive to build for office space that won't be leased in two decades.. this is why i think the city should offer aggressive tax breaks and other incentives to try and plug the central empty lots with high density developments, before anything else. in other words, to make it much more enticing for a developer to choose to build a 150m mixed use complex on one of those lots over a bunch of condo towers and a mall outside the city centre.

 

when all lots have been built, then they can raise taxes like crazy, if they want to. and the eventual tax revenue will be much higher if the area is built alot denser. so in the end they might not loose anything from it at all !

 

What Montreal needs to do to help slow down their "declin tranquille" is to slash taxes aggressively, permanently... and privatise the damn water system so that major roads don't collapse every 6 months because the 110 year old water main started leaking in 1960 and all the ground washed away

[pedepy]

i don't know about permanently .. they can barely make ends meet as it is: they need the money and should be able to get it eventually.

 

and it's just plain abnormal that some of these lots are zoned below 120m. the city plan is antiquated and should be revised. and now's the best time, as we're currently in the middle of a mini building boom.

 

also, cyrus, the point is to break the limit of the mountain. it is for me, anyway. those bylaws are ridiculous, pointless, and especially ineffective in protecting whatever it is they're trying to protect. i love the mountain, i love it's park. i love to see it rise behind the buildings from afar just as much as i love to see it's trees paint the backdrop to urban canyons when walking around downtown streets.

 

i just don't see or understand how a 300m skyscraper or two, or three, would take that away. i mean, i really don't.

 

if it's really a problem, just tax extra on higher buildings, like they do in vancouver, and invest the money to revamp the park. it's in shambles. but i guess that les amis du mont-royal don't care as much about the park as they do the .. what the hell is it that they want to protect anyway ?! ?!?..

[Cataclaw]

But mixed-use towers are unprofessional-looking for clients, if I want to see a consultant and pay him big bucks, I don't want to see anybody who isn't wearing a suit and tie Look at any of the big office towers, the "e-commerce" on Rene-Levesque, or the CIBC building, etc, when you walk into the lobby, you see they mean business and work is going to get done

 

You're joking around, right? (Hard to tell on the Internet sometimes)

 

Some of the most prestigious buildings in the world are mixed-use. Heck, Burj Dubai is about as mixed-use as possible!

[saturnus85]

Building a 40 floor building is very expensive, imposing rules on developers basically blocks them only from making decisions that are suitable for the situation, since if the decision was bad, they wouldn't invest...

 

Thank you for stating the obvious! You think the building of office space in Montreal is dead now, it'll only be deader once we start adding ridiculous zoning requirements!

 

The fact is, Montreal's office space downtown is cheap. This is at the same time a blessing and a curse: a blessing because it lowers costs for businesses, a curse because it makes real estate investment unprofitable. The prices don't justify building massive office buildings, and no silly minimum height requirement is going to change that.

 

When you talk of building one 40-storey tower instead of three 13-storey towers, Cataclaw...you basically want to impose a drastic increase in construction costs for any promoter. Bravo! I applaud your sense of business!

 

Now please answer me this...how the fuck does one 40-storey tower on a plot make more "efficient" use of infrastructure than three 13-storey buildings? How on earth does that work?

[Cyrus]

i don't know about permanently .. they can barely make ends meet as it is: they need the money and should be able to get it eventually.

 

and it's just plain abnormal that some of these lots are zoned below 120m. the city plan is antiquated and should be revised. and now's the best time, as we're currently in the middle of a mini building boom.

 

also, cyrus, the point is to break the limit of the mountain. it is for me, anyway. those bylaws are ridiculous, pointless, and especially ineffective in protecting whatever it is they're trying to protect. i love the mountain, i love it's park. i love to see it rise behind the buildings from afar just as much as i love to see it's trees paint the backdrop to urban canyons when walking around downtown streets.

 

i just don't see or understand how a 300m skyscraper or two, or three, would take that away. i mean, i really don't.

 

if it's really a problem, just tax extra on higher buildings, like they do in vancouver, and invest the money to revamp the park. it's in shambles. but i guess that les amis du mont-royal don't care as much about the park as they do the .. what the hell is it that they want to protect anyway ?! ?!?..

 

I agree with breaking the mountain limit. It drives me nuts the people going nuts about the mountain, like someone wanted to develop the Marionopolis site, oh my god the new project would have 1 square metre less grass than there is now, no way we must stop him from doing what he wants with his land, green space! green space! Maybe they should just paint the building green

 

The city has a big cash problem, but the taxes are far too high. The solution can't be to give them more money, like giving heroin to an addict... look at the water meter fiasco, all the brown envelopes... the city hall needs to slash their spending and do more with less... which is not at all impossible (except maybe, politically impossible!)

Modifié 24 juin 2010 par Cyrus

[pedepy]

Now please answer me this...how the fuck does one 40-storey tower on a plot make more "efficient" use of infrastructure than three 13-storey buildings? How on earth does that work?

 

the fuck it does it is this: transit lines loose efficiency the further away you get from them. beyond a certain point, people will start to use them alot less.

 

since that means what you want is to get as many people working and living as close as possible to the transit stops, and that a single 40 storey tower is higher density than three 13 storey ones, a single 40 storey building is therefore a more efficient use of transit infrastructure.

 

alot of ppl say that it's ok to build low on the downtown lots these days as there is "plenty of room just south". that's true, but we already layed out expensive subway lines with close stops on the downtown core planning for high density. it just makes sense then to first realize that high density that the built infrastructure had planned for, rather than keep extending the downtown area further south, having then to pay to build new infrastructures to accomodate those areas.

 

if you don't build up, you'll soon have to build out. if that's what you like, maybe you oughta just move to sprawl city, usa .. they got plenty of that..

Modifié 24 juin 2010 par pedepy

[Cataclaw]

When you talk of building one 40-storey tower instead of three 13-storey towers, Cataclaw...you basically want to impose a drastic increase in construction costs for any promoter. Bravo! I applaud your sense of business!

 

Now please answer me this...how the fuck does one 40-storey tower on a plot make more "efficient" use of infrastructure than three 13-storey buildings? How on earth does that work?

 

Hey i have an idea, why don't I buy the land at 900 Maisonneuve and build myself a single-family home. Super cheap compared to a skyscraper, right? I can sell that home for millions (it would be a large mansion, of course.)

 

Certainly cheaper in terms of construction costs than building a skyscraper, right? And hey, the revenue would be pretty good too.

 

Makes sense, no? Let's just all build low-density single-family homes everywhere. WOOHOO!

 

 

(Side note: they have that.. in the suburbs, and in Atlanta,GA or other sprawl cities. But what those places don't have is a vibrant, dense, mixed-use/mixed-activity city where you can get from A->B by foot or a quick subway ride.)

 

As for your second sentence, refer to Pedepy's post which answers that beautifully.

Modifié 24 juin 2010 par Cataclaw

[Cyrus]

I've been to Hotlanta, don't see no single family homes in the downtown core.

 

In Calgary, Alberta you see some small single family homes, in the downtown. Actually it looks right like that scene from "Up", right down to the cranes next door building skyscrapers, but of course, those houses were built circa 1910 when the downtown, wasn't, and most of them have been demolished or, surprisingly, put onto a truck and moved elsewhere to build larger buildings.

 

If you wanted to buy the land at 900 de Maisonneuve and build your own mansion, I see no problem whatsoever with that. If you sold the home, you could get millions... but the land is too valuable. Your ROI would be significantly inferior to a multistorey development and so it would not make good business sense, though it would be cheaper in the total cost, which is not important, bank will lend you as much money as you need. But what belongs to you, belongs to you!

 

the fuck it does it is this: transit lines loose efficiency the further away you get from them. beyond a certain point, people will start to use them alot less.

 

since that means what you want is to get as many people working and living as close as possible to the transit stops, and that a single 40 storey tower is higher density than three 13 storey ones, a single 40 storey building is therefore a more efficient use of transit infrastructure.

 

 

But what I think he is saying, is having let's say 3 13 storey buildings. Or, having the Seville.

Modifié 24 juin 2010 par Cyrus