[mr.John]

Has anyone been following the story of night flights over Lachine? According to some residents of Lachine the government should move all flights back to Mirabel (so they can't be inconvenienced). Are these people playing with a full deck? How much money has already been invested to upgrade Dorval so far? What the hell is wrong with the people of this city? is it any wonder Montreal always seems to be 10 years behind the rest of large Canadian cities in economic development.

[Rico Rommheim]

meh. This doesn't bother me because I know they don't stand a chance of getting anything. Right now I'm much more concerned with what's going on with the whining NIMBYs that are in the process of destroying the Place Viger dev.

[le calmar]

Sometimes the NIMBYS makes me wanna go away from this place...

[mr.John]

Viger station, griffintown, St. Michel.... it never ends with these people, the sad part is they always seem to win (the big loser is of course is Montreal)

[Rico Rommheim]

Man if it were up to me democracy would be seriously cut back in this city. Interestingly enough, the nicest cities always seem to flourish when conceived and built in autocratic systems.


Have any of you read the official transcripts from the Le Riopelle public hearings?

Bref, one person decides he doesn't like the tower so the whole thing goes to shit.

In my view, if someone has the $$$ and a architecturally sound project he should be allowed to build it instantly.

As for protecting le patrimoine and historic buildings, I'm all for that and beyond but sound, logical and rational procedures should be used instead of a twisted tangled process of talk and analysis that paralyses and indeed plagues this city's development and threatens its future.

[Chmeee]

Well, if it was up to you democracy would be cut back so nobody would listen to what you say either, ain't that right?

[Rico Rommheim]

Well, if it was up to you democracy would be cut back so nobody would listen to what you say either, ain't that right?

I am Putin, people WANT to listen to me, resistance is futile.


:borg:

[Chmeee]

I stand corrected lol!

[maisonneuve]

I went to a NIMBY-type meeting here in Toronto a couple weeks ago. It was organized by People Plan Toronto, a group which seeks to put the citizens of the city back in the planning process. In Toronto, developers are so strong, they are able to build almost at will, with very little public consultation. The forum I went to wasn't about any particular project, but it was about putting the citizen back into planning. They had the chief planner for the City of Toronto, Toronto architect Graeme Stewart, and a couple other Torontonians you might not be familiar with. It was a good forum, because people actually got to ask the chief planner questions, and hard ones too. There was some tension, but in general it was a healthy debate, at least to me.

In Montreal, things are very different. Developers aren't as powerful in terms of economic clout, so NIMBY's and NOTE's(Not Over There Either) have been successful in destroying projects. Even though I'm in Toronto, I keep an eye on what's happening in Montreal. I'm angered by the level of anti-development in the Montreal metropolitan area.

1) a group of municipalities who are passing resolutions to get ADM to reduce the number of flights at Trudeau Airport. Some even want the airport moved back to Mirabel. WHAT ARE THESE PEOPLE THINKING!!! Do they have any idea how much that harmed the metropolitan region in the first place having an airport so far from the city centre. I've been reading that reconstruction of the Dorval circle will begin soon and that there will be a light rail train linking the airport to Griffintown and downtown. That rail link and the improved infrastructure will be good for the metropolitan region. When I passed by in the train last month, I noticed 3 cranes at Trudeau Airport. From what I read, one is a hotel, one is a new baggage terminal and the other I'm not sure what it is. So, those people should just accept Trudeau Airport is staying put.

2)There's a group of citizens in St.Henri and Verdun who are in oppostion to the Turcot interchange reconstruction. They say it will harm their quality of life. No offence to anyone in that area, but their poor, what quality of life could they possibly have? They say rebuilding the highway goes against the city's green initiatives. Even if that's the case, that highway still needs to be reconstructed. Those people live next to it, can't they see? Again, good infrastructure is good for the economy of the metropolitan region. They can't just scrap ALL our road projects to bike and bus everywhere just because we want to reach 'green' initiatives and gas is too expensive. That's not practical!! People are thinking with their backyards, and not on a metropolitan scale.

3)Notre-Dame boulevard in the East End --residents are trying to squash this project for the same reasons as the people in St.Henri are doing with the Turcot.
Simple equations people, and you don't even need a CEGEP degree:
Better infrastructure = Better economy
Wider, straighter roads = facilitate transport of goods, services & people = better economy
Better economy = better quality of life
Simple equations people. Just shut up and let it be built. --The project has reserved bus lanes, bike paths and walkways right next to the boulevard, so I'm not sure what the big fuss is.

4) GRIFFINTOWN...the big one...the one that matters the most....I hear the opposition to that project has mounted to such a point that a whole bunch of planners, urbanists, architects, including people like Phyllis Lambert, signed a letter denouncing the project. Basically, those professionals are on the side of the NIMBY's. Plus, there's the merchants on Ste.Catherine who are worried about competition. Then there's journalists like Henry Aubin of the Gazette who seem obsessed with stopping this project and any development project in Montreal simply because the city or province can't afford it and because Quebec is stagnating in term of growth so they shouldn't build anything at all. All of these people are crazy!!! That sort of narrow-minded, 'let's be small, we don't have to be big' thinking is why Montreal started losing it's dominance on the Canadian urban system back in the early 1900's. Griffintown is an industrial wasteland. There's nothing there. There should be. When you come in by train from Toronto or Ottawa, the train passes right next to that area and it doesn't look impressive. In fact, it looks depressing and war torn. Now, I don't mind people complaining about how the buildings look architecturallly, because I have my views on that as well, but to try to stop the project all together is a lack of understanding how cities work. I hope that other developer is right and that Griffintown becomes the 'new downtown'. I hope they build wider roads , straight roads, on larger blocks and wide sidewalks(20feet). I know that's not very 'Montreal' and straight streets are boring to drive & walk down, but their better for moving goods, services and people, which is a part of what makes the economy work. The tram in that project is crucial, as we want an economic interplay between Griffintown and Ste. Catherine. As Alan DaSouza said in response to one of the Ste.Catherine merchants saying Griffintown will suck the life out of Ste.Catherine - "a tram goes both ways". Excellent rebuttal!

It's sort of depressing thinking about the anti-development atmosphere in Montreal, because it shows me how far the city has fallen off and how much catching up it has to do. Montreal is a tier 4 world city in terms of economic significance in the global market . If your wondering, Toronto is a tier 3 world city, right there with Madrid, Sydney and Vancouver. Tier 3 is the best most cities can hope to become, it's where Montreal should be. Tier 2 is Los Angeles, Paris, Chicago. Tier 1 is the big 3 - New York, London, Tokyo. These have the most significance on the global market. They hold most of the multinational headquarters, the largest banks, the largest securities exchanges, their the centres of communication and innovation. They influence the world like no places can. They work in sync with each other - 3 large mega-regions, 3 different times zone spaced out enough to ensure 3 different 8 hour shifts of business enabling trading & business 24 hours a day during the week. At any given time in a 24 hour work week at least one of those cities is in business. Montreal needs to get it's act together. Political instability is no longer an excuse, other cities around the world have their own crap to deal with, some have it worse. The language barrier is not an excuse, other cities like Madrid(tier 3) and Paris(tier 2) operate in languages other than English. Some cities operate in 2 or 3 languages, which is where Montreal should be - multilingual(thanks for Bouchard-Taylor report for making the need for multilingualism, instead of mere billingualism know).

Who cares about the 'hands off my city" crap, Brossard, Westmount and Dorval aren't world cities, Montreal region is. Cities are where it's at. Regions, mega-regions - I'm sounding like Richard Florida and I haven't even started reading his latest book yet!

[digitboy]

^ Wonderful post maisonneuve. I totally agree with your opinion on these subjects.

And welcome on SSP :)

[ToxiK]

I fully agree with you, Maisonneuve. I wish more people would think like you here. What you said is exactly what we need to understand in Montréal!

[Rico Rommheim]

Great opening post Maisonneuve! And yes, I agree completely! :tup:

[GDS]

It's sort of depressing thinking about the anti-development atmosphere in Montreal, because it shows me how far the city has fallen off and how much catching up it has to do. Montreal is a tier 4 world city in terms of economic significance in the global market . If your wondering, Toronto is a tier 3 world city, right there with Madrid, Sydney and Vancouver. Tier 3 is the best most cities can hope to become, it's where Montreal should be. Tier 2 is Los Angeles, Paris, Chicago. Tier 1 is the big 3 - New York, London, Tokyo. These have the most significance on the global market. They hold most of the multinational headquarters, the largest banks, the largest securities exchanges, their the centres of communication and innovation. They influence the world like no places can. They work in sync with each other - 3 large mega-regions, 3 different times zone spaced out enough to ensure 3 different 8 hour shifts of business enabling trading & business 24 hours a day during the week. At any given time in a 24 hour work week at least one of those cities is in business. Montreal needs to get it's act together. Political instability is no longer an excuse, other cities around the world have their own crap to deal with, some have it worse. The language barrier is not an excuse, other cities like Madrid(tier 3) and Paris(tier 2) operate in languages other than English. Some cities operate in 2 or 3 languages, which is where Montreal should be - multilingual(thanks for Bouchard-Taylor report for making the need for multilingualism, instead of mere billingualism know).

Who cares about the 'hands off my city" crap, Brossard, Westmount and Dorval aren't world cities, Montreal region is. Cities are where it's at. Regions, mega-regions - I'm sounding like Richard Florida and I haven't even started reading his latest book yet!

High rise construction is not an indicator of economic prosperity. The latest World Commercial Influence Index proves that. It is such a typical mentally from someone from Toronto or the ROC for that matter to think that Montreal lacks clout. Rather then be proud and encouraging towards Canada's second city, there is always a will to denigrate ;it. Montreal ranks 32nd in the world on that index; ahead of cities like Rio, Mumbai and Moscow. Now, there is little doubt that as the economies of Brazil, China, Russia and India continue to emerge, those cities and others will certainly pass us (and Toronto too for that matter). Regardless it is very interesting to note that Montreal ranks higher than several cities one would consider in the same category as Montreal (developed first world) despite the perception that Montreal is a bottom feeder. These include Dallas, Houston, Barcelona, Melbourne, Rome. Montreal also ranks extremely close to cities like San Francisco, Atlanta and Boston. If you read the report:

http://www.mastercard.com/us/company/en/insights/pdfs/2008/MCWW_WCoC-Report_2008.pdf

You can see that the main reason Montreal ranks lower is because of the centralization of banking in Canada that gives Toronto as score or 30 in Finance while Montreal scores just below 10 and 35 for Business while Montreal scores 20. That same dichotomy occurs in most countries though (Sydnex vs Melbourne, Frankfurt vs Berlin, Madrid vs Barcelona etc)

So the ones that really need to get their act together is the ROC and start to realize that Montreal is an economically vibrant city with lots going on. The main thing holding it back is the opinions of ignorant or ill-informed outsiders.

[Aylmer]

This reminds me of a song for the NIMBYs:

And in the times of evolution,
Mother NIMBY comes to me,
Speaking words of NIMBIism, let it be.
And in my darkest hour,
She is standing, right in front of me,
There will be no moving forward, let it die:

Let it be,
Let it die,
Let it be and
let it die,

There will be no evolution,
Let it die!


I bet the Beatles never tought of this!

:)

[ToxiK]

Good one! :haha: :haha:

[Rumors]

Great opening post Maisonneuve! And yes, I agree completely! :tup:

Me too. :tup:

[maisonneuve]

It is such a typical mentally from someone from Toronto or the ROC for that matter to think that Montreal lacks clout. Rather then be proud and encouraging towards Canada's second city, there is always a will to denigrate ;it. Montreal ranks 32nd in the world on that index;.....

You can see that the main reason Montreal ranks lower is because of the centralization of banking in Canada that gives Toronto as score or 30 in Finance while Montreal scores just below 10 and 35 for Business while Montreal scores 20. That same dichotomy occurs in most countries though (Sydnex vs Melbourne, Frankfurt vs Berlin, Madrid vs Barcelona etc)

So the ones that really need to get their act together is the ROC and start to realize that Montreal is an economically vibrant city with lots going on. The main thing holding it back is the opinions of ignorant or ill-informed outsiders.

Actually, I'm not an outsider. I'm from Montreal. I've been in Toronto since September going to UofT. Montreal is not a bottom feeder, it's a world city.
It's ahead of a lot of cities. But we all know things could be much better. The city's standing should be much higher. We all want progression in our city. Mass transit can be better. Roads can be better. Neighbourhoods like Griffintown can be redeveloped. There's many things to increase the quality of life in Montreal. We should always be thriving to improve things. Even New York is trying to up its game because its afraid London might overtake it as the city with the most headquarters of multinational corporations(if it hasn't already). As a city, you always have to up your game. There's social, linguistic and political issues in Montreal, and it all reflects the quality of life. Never underestimate the power of the built environment - it can produce harmony, but also disappointment. If you think things are great here in Toronto, don't be fooled. Things might seem glossy when you're zipping down 401 west in North York on a weekend trip, but stay here long enough and even Toronto has it's warts. Toronto has more private sector clout than Montreal when it comes to development, but as Canada's premier city, I find it misses the ball sometimes. For example, Toronto is experiencing a condo boom, but some Torontonians aren't happy with all these glass box high-rise condos going up. Some are nice, but most are mediocre for a city that has the financial means to produce great architecture. Or, some Torontonians would like to see the Gardiner Expressway turned into a tunnel under downtown and they give Ville-Marie Tunnel as an example. Still, there does exist an element in Toronto which denigrates the city, some even in favour of Montreal. It might surprise you, but there's a lot of love, envy and admiration for Montreal by Torontonians(even respect for the Habs as an organization). They love to show off to each other about the art, furniture, home-decor, music in their houses and drop the line "and, it's(their) from Montreal!" I use to think like you and hated when people would 'bash Montreal', but I've come to see it as a good thing. When people stop being critical, it means they've stopped caring.

This is all in the name of progress. Whether it's Pauline Marois or Phyllis Lambert, nobody should be standing in front of progress in the Montreal metropolitan region.

[GDS]

Actually, I'm not an outsider. I'm from Montreal. I've been in Toronto since September going to UofT. Montreal is not a bottom feeder, it's a world city.
It's ahead of a lot of cities. But we all know things could be much better. The city's standing should be much higher. We all want progression in our city. Mass transit can be better. Roads can be better. Neighbourhoods like Griffintown can be redeveloped. There's many things to increase the quality of life in Montreal. We should always be thriving to improve things. Even New York is trying to up its game because its afraid London might overtake it as the city with the most headquarters of multinational corporations(if it hasn't already). As a city, you always have to up your game. There's social, linguistic and political issues in Montreal, and it all reflects the quality of life. Never underestimate the power of the built environment - it can produce harmony, but also disappointment. If you think things are great here in Toronto, don't be fooled. Things might seem glossy when you're zipping down 401 west in North York on a weekend trip, but stay here long enough and even Toronto has it's warts. Toronto has more private sector clout than Montreal when it comes to development, but as Canada's premier city, I find it misses the ball sometimes. For example, Toronto is experiencing a condo boom, but some Torontonians aren't happy with all these glass box high-rise condos going up. Some are nice, but most are mediocre for a city that has the financial means to produce great architecture. Or, some Torontonians would like to see the Gardiner Expressway turned into a tunnel under downtown and they give Ville-Marie Tunnel as an example. Still, there does exist an element in Toronto which denigrates the city, some even in favour of Montreal. It might surprise you, but there's a lot of love, envy and admiration for Montreal by Torontonians(even respect for the Habs as an organization). They love to show off to each other about the art, furniture, home-decor, music in their houses and drop the line "and, it's(their) from Montreal!" I use to think like you and hated when people would 'bash Montreal', but I've come to see it as a good thing. When people stop being critical, it means they've stopped caring.

This is all in the name of progress. Whether it's Pauline Marois or Phyllis Lambert, nobody should be standing in front of progress in the Montreal metropolitan region.

Progress is a very vague word, it means different things to different people. You don't get to define it for everyone.

It is not a question about bashing Montreal, it is question of using valid arguments. I have no problem pointing out Montreal many flaws as I do pointing out its highlights. You act as though Montreal is the only place where there is opposition to projects and that those that oppose are more likely to succeed in cancelling projects. People are supposed to fight for their personal interests - that is the way of the world. There is no development anywhere that is unanimous, and thinking that debating projects and public forums only hinder growth only shows lack of growth on your part. Moreover, comments like:

They say it will harm their quality of life. No offence to anyone in that area, but their poor, what quality of life could they possibly have?

Simple equations people. Just shut up and let it be built.

Only go to highlight your immaturity.

What exactly is the point you are trying to make here?? That the anti-development machine in Montreal is so strong that it is stifling the city to the point that is/will no longer be a world player?

The FACT of the matter is that despite the socio-economic setbacks that Montreal has endured over the last several decades like political tension, drop in manufacturing, centralization in Toronto, refocus of Asia from Europe. Montreal has faired far better than most of its counterparts that faced fewer challenges. IMO when looking at similar sized old cities in North America, probably only Toronto and Boston have faired better then Montreal since the 1950’s. That SUCCESS is a testament to people here pushing for things to get done. It means for everyone pushing to stop some development there are even more pushing for more development and change.

Maybe you will figure that out later because it is not covered in freshman geography where you probably read Esparza's Spatial Markets of Cities Organized in a Hierarchical System that first defined Tier cities. Maybe your second year of schooling will make you wiser or at least less arrogant

[maisonneuve]

Yes GDS, I am immature. I have a lot to learn, but that's why I read as much as I can, and even then it won't be enough. If I reach the age of 80 years old, I'll still be immature, and that's why I'll still be reading...There are nimbys in every city, but some how Montreal seems to be encompassed by them. Sometimes for the good, like when the Casino was planned for the Peel Basin. Sometimes their wrong, like with the Turcot Interchange. It's true that progress is a vague word. I think in this context it's about development of the urban fabric of Montreal. This includes some elements like street furniture right up to large structures like rail links which operate on a metropolitan level. Someone else might define progress in a different way. Everyone must have their say on how or if things should be built. The question is, should everyone have to listen? My answer is no. That might sound arrogant to some people, but that's the way the world works. There are many examples of this. Those people in the East End complaining about the Notre-Dame plan had their say and will continue to have their say, but the people who make the decisions might listen to all, some or none of what they say. It's important that a discourse is done so the people and the builders can work together. However, there are times when the builders are ahead of what the people want. In the Griffintown project, the opposition to the plan would prefer to see it look like Dockside Green in Victoria, with lots of green space, nicely trimmed hedges, and impeccable grass between apartment buildings spaced out over the area. That looks lovely in Victoria, but this is Montreal, what will a 'green' project look like on a random January 21st? The idea of Le Corbusier's 'towers in a park' has been tried before with horrible consequences. Flemington Park and Oriole Park in Toronto are two examples of what too much green space in a project can do. Instead of the greenery becoming an ambulatory for residents and citizens from around the city, they become 'no man's land' where teens loiter and criminal acts are committed. Nobody wants that. Green space is good in a project, but too much of it can have a perverse effect of reducing the safety of the neighborhood. Jane Jacobs hated such projects because it removed the 'eyes on the street' element which are so vital to neighborhood safety. These spaces create "...promenades that go from no place to nowhere and have no promenaders...". The spaces in between buildings are just as important, if not more, than the spaces in front. Sometimes the people know best and the builders should listen to them. Jane Jacobs could be considered the greatest nimby of them all, but she was very successful in stopping projects that would have ruined certain parts of Toronto and New York. Imagine Greenwich Village today with a Lower Manhattan Expressway or all those cultural neighborhoods in Toronto if the Spadina Expressway were built. Those are examples of the nimbys stopping flawed projects. Every city needs a 'Jane Jacobs' or a coalition of citizens you think like she thought. In Montreal, those people exist. They need to exist because they know what's best on the micro level for their neighborhood, their block and their street. Sometimes, builders can't think of how things effect people on the micro level because to them a project is all lines on a drawing or at best a model. However, for every Jane Jacobs in a city, there must be a Robert Moses who can think on a macro, metropolitan level. The nimbys sometimes fail to realize that everyone in the metropolitan region has a backyard too. Rain, snow & sunshine falls on everyone and so should development. When looking at Moses' career as a builder, he started off very well as a builder years ahead of what people knew they wanted. He oversaw the building of parks, schools, beaches, pools, highways, bridges and other elements which New Yorkers enjoyed. In the 1930's people would drive out to Jones Beach in Long Island by the thousands and drive around the countryside of Long Island looking at the scenery. The second half of his career as a builder is an example of why nimbys exist today. He became a builder out of control! His highways started to become too pervasive. He wanted to run highways right across thriving neighborhoods just for the sake of keeping the flow of the New York area traffic going. He was successful with the Cross Bronx expressway which created a Decarie Expressway-like effect of separating a neighborhood in two. One he took control of the NYC housing department(along with overseeing all the highway development New York), he started slum clearing to build Corbusian styled apartment towers. That's why when you go to New York you see thousands of those high rise, brown-bricked apartment towers, which are separated by green space or paved surfaces, built on superblocks. When he tried to run the Lower Manhattan Expressway through Greenwich Village and other neighborhoods, Jane Jacobs and her followers succeeded in stopping him.

This thread is about nimbys in Montreal who seem to be against every large project, it's not against nimbys period. Sometimes nimbys should stay silent and let the builders build. Other times the builders should listen to the nimbys. Every city needs that Jane Jacobs-Robert Moses dynamic. In Toronto, there's too many Moses', but not enough Jacobs'. This is bad as well. The frustration I have is that in Montreal there's so many Jane Jacobs', but hardly any Robert Moses'. Who in Montreal has the ability to think on a metropolitan level and get things done? I suppose Drapeau was one, for better or for worse, but after him who? Is Gerald Tremblay going to be the mayor that pushes to get things done, for better or for worse? Maybe that's why he's doing an end run around the public consultations to build Griffintown. Who plays the role in Montreal of Donald Trump, Concord Adex, Harry Stinson or Forest City when it comes to buildings? Is Devimco going to be Montreal's big developer that will transform the city or will other such developers come on board to progress the metropolitan region?

The Jane Jacobs-Robert Moses dynamic needs to be established in Montreal.

[Aylmer]

Reeespect!

:)

[GDS]

Yes GDS, I am immature. I have a lot to learn, but that's why I read as much as I can, and even then it won't be enough. If I reach the age of 80 years old, I'll still be immature, and that's why I'll still be reading...There are nimbys in every city, but some how Montreal seems to be encompassed by them. Sometimes for the good, like when the Casino was planned for the Peel Basin. Sometimes their wrong, like with the Turcot Interchange. It's true that progress is a vague word. I think in this context it's about development of the urban fabric of Montreal. This includes some elements like street furniture right up to large structures like rail links which operate on a metropolitan level. Someone else might define progress in a different way. Everyone must have their say on how or if things should be built. The question is, should everyone have to listen? My answer is no. That might sound arrogant to some people, but that's the way the world works. There are many examples of this. Those people in the East End complaining about the Notre-Dame plan had their say and will continue to have their say, but the people who make the decisions might listen to all, some or none of what they say. It's important that a discourse is done so the people and the builders can work together. However, there are times when the builders are ahead of what the people want. In the Griffintown project, the opposition to the plan would prefer to see it look like Dockside Green in Victoria, with lots of green space, nicely trimmed hedges, and impeccable grass between apartment buildings spaced out over the area. That looks lovely in Victoria, but this is Montreal, what will a 'green' project look like on a random January 21st? The idea of Le Corbusier's 'towers in a park' has been tried before with horrible consequences. Flemington Park and Oriole Park in Toronto are two examples of what too much green space in a project can do. Instead of the greenery becoming an ambulatory for residents and citizens from around the city, they become 'no man's land' where teens loiter and criminal acts are committed. Nobody wants that. Green space is good in a project, but too much of it can have a perverse effect of reducing the safety of the neighborhood. Jane Jacobs hated such projects because it removed the 'eyes on the street' element which are so vital to neighborhood safety. These spaces create "...promenades that go from no place to nowhere and have no promenaders...". The spaces in between buildings are just as important, if not more, than the spaces in front. Sometimes the people know best and the builders should listen to them. Jane Jacobs could be considered the greatest nimby of them all, but she was very successful in stopping projects that would have ruined certain parts of Toronto and New York. Imagine Greenwich Village today with a Lower Manhattan Expressway or all those cultural neighborhoods in Toronto if the Spadina Expressway were built. Those are examples of the nimbys stopping flawed projects. Every city needs a 'Jane Jacobs' or a coalition of citizens you think like she thought. In Montreal, those people exist. They need to exist because they know what's best on the micro level for their neighborhood, their block and their street. Sometimes, builders can't think of how things effect people on the micro level because to them a project is all lines on a drawing or at best a model. However, for every Jane Jacobs in a city, there must be a Robert Moses who can think on a macro, metropolitan level. The nimbys sometimes fail to realize that everyone in the metropolitan region has a backyard too. Rain, snow & sunshine falls on everyone and so should development. When looking at Moses' career as a builder, he started off very well as a builder years ahead of what people knew they wanted. He oversaw the building of parks, schools, beaches, pools, highways, bridges and other elements which New Yorkers enjoyed. In the 1930's people would drive out to Jones Beach in Long Island by the thousands and drive around the countryside of Long Island looking at the scenery. The second half of his career as a builder is an example of why nimbys exist today. He became a builder out of control! His highways started to become too pervasive. He wanted to run highways right across thriving neighborhoods just for the sake of keeping the flow of the New York area traffic going. He was successful with the Cross Bronx expressway which created a Decarie Expressway-like effect of separating a neighborhood in two. One he took control of the NYC housing department(along with overseeing all the highway development New York), he started slum clearing to build Corbusian styled apartment towers. That's why when you go to New York you see thousands of those high rise, brown-bricked apartment towers, which are separated by green space or paved surfaces, built on superblocks. When he tried to run the Lower Manhattan Expressway through Greenwich Village and other neighborhoods, Jane Jacobs and her followers succeeded in stopping him.



Once again you sing the song of a first year geography or urbanism class quoting the most overused examples from Jane Jacobs and Robert Moses. Apart from the first few sentences this looks like it is plagarised or paraphrased from a textbook or article by Amanda Burden. I don't need an urban geography refresher nor do I need a book report on the Life and Death of Great American cities and the Power Broker (required reading no doubt). It also appears that you don't know the meaning of the word immature.



This thread is about nimbys in Montreal who seem to be against every large project, it's not against nimbys period. Sometimes nimbys should stay silent and let the builders build. Other times the builders should listen to the nimbys.


And who get's to decide when that happens? You? the ulitmate authority? What a ridiculous statement "sometimes nimbys should stay silent" - that goes against the definition of the word NIMBY. Here is another word you need to look up.


Every city needs that Jane Jacobs-Robert Moses dynamic. In Toronto, there's too many Moses', but not enough Jacobs'. This is bad as well. The frustration I have is that in Montreal there's so many Jane Jacobs', but hardly any Robert Moses'. Who in Montreal has the ability to think on a metropolitan level and get things done? I suppose Drapeau was one, for better or for worse, but after him who? Is Gerald Tremblay going to be the mayor that pushes to get things done, for better or for worse? Maybe that's why he's doing an end run around the public consultations to build Griffintown. Who plays the role in Montreal of Donald Trump, Concord Adex, Harry Stinson or Forest City when it comes to buildings? Is Devimco going to be Montreal's big developer that will transform the city or will other such developers come on board to progress the metropolitan region?

The Jane Jacobs-Robert Moses dynamic needs to be established in Montreal.


I don't think so. A city does not need some type of urban fabric product champion and an urban development product champion acting as a ying-yang to one another to achieve proper growth. Are you trying to say that Montreal is not a beautiful or functional city because there has never seen a massive coordinated but challenged development led by a single developer like a Trump or Stinson? If not, then why would it need it now?

[Aylmer]

A city does not need some type of urban fabric product champion and an urban development product champion acting as a ying-yang to one another to achieve proper growth.

Do you remember the 70's? (because I shure don't!)

http://jrlegallais.free.fr/photos/villes/paris/tourmontparnasse/Tour_Montparnasse-20060909-001-Parc_de_St-Cloud-JRL.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1006/660331196_aa8d6cacc5.jpg

I rest Maisonneuve's case.

[GDS]

You actually proved my point. La Tour Montparnasse (your first pic) didn't undergo any public consultations. In other words, NIMBY's were silenced - but architectural theory of the time believed that open plan offices would be the future. The construction was such a disaster that high-rise construction was and still is completely banned in Paris proper - hence the creation of La Defence. It just shows that a degree doesn't make you right sometimes the people on the front lines may be right.

Thanks!

[Rico Rommheim]

Man GDS chill out. Maisonneuve is one of the few new forumers (actually the only one) who's been bringing insightful opinions. Just because you don't agree with doesn't mean you ought to get into a flame war!? :shrug:

[QatzelOk]

There's a group of citizens in St.Henri and Verdun who are in oppostion to the Turcot interchange reconstruction. They say it will harm their quality of life. No offence to anyone in that area, but their poor, what quality of life could they possibly have?

These people may be poorer than most in Montreal, but I feel strongly that they should have the right to voice their opinions about their needs and desires for their neighborhoods.

Poor people in Montreal have often seen highways built next to their homes, and this means their children have to breath in all kinds of poisons from wealthier commuters from suburbia who - themselves - would block any increased level of traffic near their own suburban-sprawl homes.

Poor people shouldn't have to breath in the waste products of people who consume more than they do. This isn't fair. The rich may own nice cars, but they don't own the lungs and health of the less well-off.

And if you think these poor people are easy to write off like so many dead Iraqis, let me ask you a question: if someone wealthier than yourself wants to build something that will slowly poison you and your family, should everyone just be quiet and let this happen? Would we be blocking progress if we voiced a contrary opinion?

Is "progress" really about letting the wealthy build monuments to themselves on top of the quality of life of the poor?

[Aylmer]

You actually proved my point. La Tour Montparnasse (your first pic) didn't undergo any public consultations. In other words, NIMBY's were silenced - but architectural theory of the time believed that open plan offices would be the future. The construction was such a disaster that high-rise construction was and still is completely banned in Paris proper - hence the creation of La Defence. It just shows that a degree doesn't make you right sometimes the people on the front lines may be right.

Thanks!

Yes, but no matter: If there was public consultations, I bet that 58 storey building
would not have been supported by the neighbors. Or the surrounding residents.
Or the residents of the area. Or the residents of the city. Or, basicly anyone.


And would you beleive it, they probably wouldn't have wanted a whole mess of
Montmarasse towers in their backyards of basicly in their city.

I hate NIMBYism as much as the next YIMBY, but sometimes, they are right to say NO.

:)

[Mille Sabords]

Yes GDS, I am immature. I have a lot to learn, but that's why I read as much as I can, and even then it won't be enough. If I reach the age of 80 years old, I'll still be immature, and that's why I'll still be reading...

Welcome to the forum, Maisonneuve. That quote right there is what makes me respect everything you said.

I'm from Ottawa but I know and love Montreal enough to also be sad of seeing it choked by NIMBY's. In my opinion it's part backlash against the city's Drapeau era, part insecurity after suffering its relegation to second-place metropolis in Canada.

Funny how these things work. Drapeau was a crooked mayor and a dictatorial prick but he got things done: the subway, Expo, the Olympics, basically putting Montreal on the world map. His techniques were no different than those of other mayors at the time but because he was a lucky enough bastard to be working on Canada's boomtown and metropolis at the time, his projects were always the biggest, the flashiest, the riskiest, and the ones that involved the most "displacement" of the Established Order. The pendulum has swung back and now Montreal is mired in the over-consultative, over-paranoid, over-careful rut of cities that are not on the edge.

I know because I'm in one such city, Ottawa. But there's always reason to hope... Our mayor right now has been criminally charged for rigging the election he won, and he mey yet go to jail, but if he does nothing more than father our subway then I'll consider him a landmark mayor.

Cities are bare-knuckles places, that's what makes them fun. Sometimes the most crooked mayors are also the ones who get the most done. Strange mix of Haussmann and Tony Soprano :D Because speaking of Haussmann, if cities could only be so lucky as to go back to the way he worked on Paris... well, one can dream.

Welcome to the forum.

[maisonneuve]

Once again you sing the song of a first year geography or urbanism class quoting the most overused examples from Jane Jacobs and Robert Moses. Apart from the first few sentences this looks like it is plagarised or paraphrased from a textbook or article by Amanda Burden. I don't need an urban geography refresher nor do I need a book report on the Life and Death of Great American cities and the Power Broker (required reading no doubt). It also appears that you don't know the meaning of the word immature.

GDS, not everyone might be familiar with Jane Jacobs or Robert Moses, so if you found my post boring then you shouldn't have read it. I respect the fact that you don't need a refresher course, because you seem to know a lot about urban geography and architecture. You've obviously studied those subjects or you're in the process of studying those subjects right now at the graduate level. You've probably watched The End of Suburbia on YouTube a few times and you might even be reading Urban Nation right now. Just so you know, I'm working on my third post secondary degree. I enjoy building on my knowledge, in university and in the workplace. I'm a lot more knowledgeable than you think, but certainly not as knowledgeable as you. From what you've been writing in your replies to my posts, you seem to be assuming that I'm a teenage freshman new to university. I wouldn't be surprised if we're both close to the same age.

[ÉricdeMtl]

@ maisonneuve

J'peux pas dire être 100% en accord avec tout tes propos, mais en grande partie oui, tu apportes de bons points et prends la peine d'élaborer . Ce que font normalement les gens avec des arguments sensés d'ailleurs .
Merci et bienvenue sur le forum!
_____________________________________________________________________________________________

http://img515.imageshack.us/img515/2458/les2toursrelue1.png (http://imageshack.us)

^J'avoue que c'est pas un chef d'oeuvre,mais arrêtez de prendre cet immeuble en exemple,pas parce qu'il est cousin avec celui-ci, qu'il faut le démoniser ! :P

http://img206.imageshack.us/img206/8/deuxtourszp9.png (http://imageshack.us)