ville-marie Square Dorchester et Place du Canada: réaménagement

[Cataclaw]

If you wanted to buy the land at 900 de Maisonneuve and build your own mansion, I see no problem whatsoever with that.

 

Downtowns are essentially large public places. You can't just build a single-family home on a lot like that. That's why it isn't even allowed, because of zoning. Regulation: it's a beautiful thing!

 

A lot like the 900 Maisonneuve is expected to contribute something to its environment.. maybe some shops, maybe a theater, but a simple house just does nothing. It won't even bring much in the way of revenue.

 

The free market is not an invincible and omniscient force impervious to mistakes. Basic common-sense regulations are needed to guide it and help it prosper in the right way.

 

You can't have a single-family home downtown, and you ought not be able to build anything less than 160m at 1300 René-Levesque (for example).

[Cyrus]

What if you have a house there though? Most of the homes still standing downtown were row-houses, but there are still a lot of them around there... some having been converted into some kind of business...

 

The free-market does make mistakes at certain times. But regulations, almost always make mistakes The real question, is why NOT? The market discriminates heavily against making a small building on a big lot in a downtown, or really any dense area. Common sense There is no "basic common-sense regulation" to tell you to keep breathing... why should any "basic common sense regulation" even exist?

 

There are already so many problems with infill development in Montreal's core... look at all the wastelands because, mostly bureaucratic BS from City Hall. The Seville... the old condemned mansion/gravel parking lot at Rene-Levesque and Guy, etc etc It doesn't need more rules, it needs less, to actually DO something with the property. An empty lot has a density of zero

 

A regulation can only kill a project. It cannot make a project.

 

Hell speaking of that parking lot, why is so much of the lot covered in weeds and cigarette butts instead of parking more cars to the sidewalk edge? Considering the owner charges like $140 a month to park there, it must be some municipal regulation that is making that land unused... reducing the density

Modifié 24 juin 2010 par Cyrus

[Cataclaw]

What if you have a house there though? Most of the homes still standing downtown were row-houses, but there are still a lot of them around there... some having been converted into some kind of business...

 

The free-market does make mistakes at certain times. But regulations, almost always make mistakes The real question, is why NOT? The market discriminates heavily against making a small building on a big lot in a downtown, or really any dense area. Common sense There is no "basic common-sense regulation" to tell you to keep breathing... why should any "basic common sense regulation" even exist?

 

There are already so many problems with infill development in Montreal's core... look at all the wastelands because, mostly bureaucratic BS from City Hall. The Seville... the old condemned mansion/gravel parking lot at Rene-Levesque and Guy, etc etc It doesn't need more rules, it needs less, to actually DO something with the property. An empty lot has a density of zero

 

Well, by now it's obvious you're an anti-regulation, pro-free-market, anti-government, hard-right conservative. There's nothing wrong with that, i'm not suggesting an insult of any kind. Your views are your own. I respect that.

 

However, your views are anchored in ideology and not rational pragmatism. I've studied cities as an urban planner for 4 years now and i've learned to steer clear of people who view cities from an ideological standpoint. As with any ideologue, your opinion was made before the discussion even started. No amount of factual argumentation based in sound logic will change that.

 

"Determine my opinion first, then identify facts to support my view" instead of "Study the facts, then reach a conclusion".

 

So i give up. I've debated long enough, too long in fact... i won't change your views on cities. I totally respect your views and i cherish the debate we've had, but i'm now at a point where i don't think any argumentation, no matter how decisive, can affect you viewpoint, so that'll have to do.

 

I'll end by saying that i appreciate the fact that Montreal is a progressive city that embraces smart growth principles at the expense of 1960s era methodology.

 

I realize this post might come off as a little condescending and/or arrogant, and i sincerely apologize for that... but i just know i'm right on this. And the proof that i'm right? Look at Atlanta, GA and then look at Montreal. The proof is right there.

Modifié 24 juin 2010 par Cataclaw

[Cyrus]

Well, by now it's obvious you're an anti-regulation, pro-free-market, anti-government, hard-right conservative. There's nothing wrong with that, i'm not suggesting an insult of any kind. Your views are your own. I respect that.

 

I would say "libertarian", we are above right and left But that is too off topic...

Modifié 24 juin 2010 par Cyrus

[JFrosty]

I would say "libertarian", we are above right and left But that is too off topic...

 

Actually, libertarians are far to the right economically, just not socially.

[Cataclaw]

 

 

 

---------------------------

 

Back on topic -- i had a chance to pass by recently and the work is progressing nicely! This is really going to be a place to sit down and have lunch in the summer!

[Cyrus]

Actually, libertarians are far to the right economically, just not socially.

 

Exactly, or as I say, the left has their hands in your pockets, the right wing in your underwear, libertarian keeps his hands to himself

[JFrosty]

Exactly, or as I say, the left has their hands in your pockets, the right wing in your underwear, libertarian keeps his hands to himself

 

Exactly. And he keeps them so much to himself that he contributes in nothing to society. Not everything fixes itself naturally, as libertarians would love to believe.

[Cataclaw]

Exactly. And he keeps them so much to himself that he contributes in nothing to society. Not everything fixes itself naturally, as libertarians would love to believe.

 

I can't help myself, sorry

 

[saturnus85]

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

 

Cataclaw was talking about a single promoter building one tower instead of three on a single plot. Your argument is irrelevant. If the amount of floor space is the same, it's the same density, no matter how tall the building is.

 

As for Cataclaw's argument that we need 40+ storey office buildings to make public transit worthwhile: you're on crack!