Updates from Kate Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • Kate 20:30 on 2018-10-21 Permalink | Reply  

    An op-ed written by two urbanists in Le Devoir pleads for unifying urban planning and public transit at the ministry level, instead of treating them like separate domains.

  • Kate 20:29 on 2018-10-21 Permalink | Reply  

    A waitress at the Blanche-Neige on Côte-des-Neiges has been awarded $52,000 after a complaint of sexual harassment by her boss.

  • Kate 19:46 on 2018-10-21 Permalink | Reply  

    The Centre d’histoire this weekend has a piece about the Lachine Canal and the Irish workers who lived in the area for decades.

  • Kate 19:35 on 2018-10-21 Permalink | Reply  

    A criminologist’s study found what most Montrealers on the qui-vive already knew: SPVM cops use Twitter during protests.

  • Kate 19:27 on 2018-10-21 Permalink | Reply  

    Longshoremen at the Port of Montreal are mad as hell at management over what’s felt to be high-handed changes in scheduling and other rules. They have the right to strike as of the new year.

  • Kate 14:53 on 2018-10-21 Permalink | Reply  

    Just saw a few snowflakes. Early when it’s still ten days to Halloween.

    • Mark Côté 15:02 on 2018-10-21 Permalink

      I was wondering if I was imagining them…

    • JPM 17:11 on 2018-10-21 Permalink

      Saw a few flakes briefly on Wednesday night.

    • Emily Gray 20:16 on 2018-10-21 Permalink

      I thought I saw some today.

  • Kate 11:09 on 2018-10-21 Permalink | Reply  

    A second apartment building belonging to the same owner as the Plateau building evacuated last week has been condemned as unsafe by the city and the remaining tenants told they will have to leave. The landlord simply turned the water and heating off after a long period of other forms of neglect, and waited for the city to do the deed. See, getting rid of your low-grade tenants is easy.

    • steph 15:45 on 2018-10-21 Permalink

      “le propriétaire a préféré payer l’hôtel à ses locataires plutôt que de réparer le chauffage”. hotels get expensive fast, is flipping the property after condemnation still wroth it? What are the rules after condemnation?

    • Kate 16:14 on 2018-10-21 Permalink

      I doubt it was the Ritz, steph.

  • Kate 10:29 on 2018-10-21 Permalink | Reply  

    Urbania has an amusingly snarky visit to the Underground City, with lots of photos.

    • Jack 12:44 on 2018-10-21 Permalink

      I wish they would have been more snarky with Martineau.

    • Zeke 14:14 on 2018-10-21 Permalink


      Snark or not. When it is raining or freezing cold being able to walk from Saint Urbain and Sherbrooke to Saint Antoine and Saint Francois Xavier or Rene Levesque and Crescent or Metcalfe and Sherbrooke is extremely comfortable if not quite a straight line.

      And for what it is worth, this is my list of “not so bad” places to eat underground.

      If anybody else has additions, suggestions or feels differently, please don’t hesitate to let me know.

    • Uatu 17:46 on 2018-10-21 Permalink

      @Zeke… your list reminds me of the college pub crawls where there was at least one pub that was under ground just to screw with the crawler’s increasingly inebriated heads… haha

  • Kate 08:08 on 2018-10-21 Permalink | Reply  

    TVA asks who’s consuming cannabis in Montreal and provides an infographic based on a survey from 2014-2015, not from the recent legalization as the lede implies.

  • Kate 08:04 on 2018-10-21 Permalink | Reply  

    Aside from a short squib about a car bursting into flame on the 40 Saturday evening, I’m not finding any police blotter items for Sunday morning. Skimming world news makes me realize: we are a fortunate tribe, even with the tribulations of the climate and the CAQ.

    • Tim F 08:35 on 2018-10-21 Permalink

      Amen, sister.

    • Nic 10:18 on 2018-10-21 Permalink

      Yes indeed.

    • Chris 11:42 on 2018-10-21 Permalink

      Billions of people on Earth would love to have a government like the CAQ: you know, the kind chosen by the people and not imposed by violence and force.

    • ant6n 12:23 on 2018-10-21 Permalink

      For now

    • Chris 13:42 on 2018-10-21 Permalink

      Oh please.

    • ant6n 17:13 on 2018-10-21 Permalink

      Well, u sound like you’ll probably dead by the time shit hits the fan, younger ppl won’t be so fortunate.

    • Chris 18:34 on 2018-10-21 Permalink

      ant6n, your ageism aside, what is it you are even saying? That we are not a fortunate tribe compared to billions of others in the world? That, under the CAQ’s 4 year term, you expect Quebec to descend into violence, dictatorship, theocracy, or similar predicament to much of the rest of the world? We have it good. Where’s your solidarity?

    • ant6n 19:07 on 2018-10-21 Permalink

      I expect regression on climate action, which will hurt everybody down the line, independent of where in the world they live. In a way its a kind of cynical attitude – yes Quebec may be affected disproportionately less by climate change (we’re a lucky tribe), but certainly we’re doing disproportionately more to exacerbate the problem.

      I think climate change has the potential, in surprisingly few decades, to create the kind of “interesting times” that will make the first half of the 20th century appear harmless.

      A lesser but still dangerous upcoming struggle may be the late stage capitalism, combined with neoliberalism, increasing wealth inequality, the slow deconstruction of democracy and the emergence of faschism. I doubt CAQ will really help solve this problem-complex either.

    • Chris 20:32 on 2018-10-21 Permalink

      ant6n, ah, you’re talking about about decades of climate change, I was talking about the present and 4 years of the CAQ. I read your ‘for now’ reply as in: “for now billions of people on Earth would love to have a government like the CAQ, but soon the CAQ will be so bad they wouldn’t.”

  • Kate 07:59 on 2018-10-21 Permalink | Reply  

    CBC profiles a man who’s been giving vegetables away for free once a week beside the Lachine Canal.

    • Chris 18:37 on 2018-10-21 Permalink

      An interesting individual!

  • Kate 20:02 on 2018-10-20 Permalink | Reply  

    On Ricochet, Xavier Camus calls out Journal columnist Lise Ravary for making false and inflammatory claims about the antiracist demonstration held in Montreal on October 7. A Gazette photo essay does not show any of the features Ravary claims she was shown in photos by an unnamed source.

  • Kate 15:35 on 2018-10-20 Permalink | Reply  

    Marvin Rotrand is urging city council to pass a motion of tolerance and inclusion: François Legault isn’t yet proposing to ban elected officials who wear religious signifiers, but Rotrand wants to have this stated up front.

  • Kate 15:34 on 2018-10-20 Permalink | Reply  

    Le Devoir lists what it considers the best cafés in Montreal, some new, some older.

    • Tim F 16:06 on 2018-10-20 Permalink

      No Olimpico?

    • Kate 16:09 on 2018-10-20 Permalink

      Nope, even though the Telegraph put the Olimpico on par with some of Europe’s most elegant establishments. No Milano, no Gentile, no Oui Mais Non or Campanelli. There are so many good ones, we’re spoiled.

    • Zeke 16:10 on 2018-10-20 Permalink


      As per usual there are a bunch that are missing (beyond Olimpico – and Kate’s additions). The places on my list that should be considered: Cinéma Moderne, La Vieille Europe, Rhubarbe, Automne, La Bête à Pain, Maison Christian Faure, La Meunerie Urbaine, Café Saint Henri, Patrice Pâtissier.

    • Kate 21:35 on 2018-10-20 Permalink

      Zeke, Le Devoir never claimed to be making an exhaustive list. It’s just a skimmed list of cafés the writer liked, so it’s not that things are missing.

    • dewolf 11:47 on 2018-10-21 Permalink

      Thanks for that list, Zeke. I haven’t been to a number of those. It’s incredible how many good cafés there are in Montreal.

  • Kate 08:54 on 2018-10-20 Permalink | Reply  

    La Presse covers a meeting held by owners of Rosemont borough’s shoebox houses, reporting that they are not keen on the new rules meant to preserve the little buildings.

    • david 14:40 on 2018-10-20 Permalink

      I still don’t understand why the borough (or anyone else) sees value in requiring owners to maintain some low quality single story worker housing that was slapped up a hundred years ago. Let alone prioritizing that over building more housing for people.

      If Croteau and the rest want to do something, they can prohibit joining units and kill the trend that sees duplexes and triplexes become single family homes.

    • Kate 16:06 on 2018-10-20 Permalink

      david, they’re a part of Montreal’s history and they’re already disappearing because they aren’t the most efficient (or profitable) use of a typical plot of residential land. They’ve been vanishing in Villeray in recent years so something similar must have been observed in Rosemont too, although the article cited above says the city still has about a thousand, half of them in Rosemont-PP.

      Several threads come in here. One is a feeling that we have a socio-architectural history here that has sometimes been heedlessly destroyed, sometimes quickly for profit, for motives of social change like Jean Drapeau’s razing of Goose Village, or because the will of the car ordained that highways had to obliterate parts of the existing street grid. We’re jumpy about seeing this happen again and some politicians are keener than others about catching this kind of tendency before it gets out of hand.

      Another thread is a big one: when does the common good get to win out over private property? Our elected officials make decisions all the time about things that affect the quality of our neighbourhoods – but how you define the “common good” is always debatable. Books of political theory can be and have been written about this boundary.

      And there’s this: Chances are there are maybe two dozen shoebox houses of real charm, architectural and historical interest, worth preserving as examples and testament to the past, out of the thousand or so in the city. The problem is that politically you can’t cherry-pick. Rosemont-PP has decided to go all in and protect them all because defining the good ones is not easily done within the terms of law. Owners of shoeboxes have to be treated equally. The borough will have to back down, and condo developers won’t care whether the little house on the lot is an exceptionally nice one. It will be knocked down, and most of the others will be knocked down, over time.

    • david 18:24 on 2018-10-20 Permalink

      Just because there have been and continue to be real atrocities (see the destruction of the Children’s) doesn’t mean that governments should be protecting totally irrelevant housing modes (such as these shacks) on principle. These 570-odd lots represent at least potential 1100 housing units that will never come to market, and offloads that unmet demand onto every other unit in the borough, pushing up housing costs. That’s a public policy decision that has real consequences and that actually affects people’s lives, unlike the nebulous ‘historical’ value guiding the decision to save the shacks.

      The overriding common good here is affordable housing near work, shops and services. And definitely some private property rights should be subordinated to that good: people should not be allowed to join multiple units into oneso they can have a second or third floor; there should be no legal protection of views; landlords should not be allowed to keep commercial spaces empty; chain shops should be barred outright like they do in most of San Francisco. But subordinating property rights to an idea that we need these shacks just seems nuts to me, and running directly counter to the public’s interest.

      And bear in mind that what we’re talking about doesn’t require that these things are torn down – it’s perfectly likely that more of these shacks will remain shacks because lots of people want single family homes and would value that use more than they would redevelopment into a more productive form.

    • Kevin 22:24 on 2018-10-20 Permalink

      What’s wrong with joining units in a duplex for a large family? It prevents people from moving to the burbs and thus prevents sprawl

    • Kate 07:52 on 2018-10-21 Permalink

      Kevin, it subtracts rental units from the area. As does Airbnb of course.

    • JaneyB 10:16 on 2018-10-21 Permalink

      It’s nice to preserve a few of them as a historical relic but their owners rely on them expressly for their future excellent resale value. A law that prohibits a specific group of home owners from selling their homes for maximum profit…hard to imagine that would stand up in court. It’s a targeted penalty of about 300k per owner. Even flimsier is that the house model being protected is one that is less desirable to inhabit and that the law affects only one borough. Lawyer-time.

    • Kevin 10:41 on 2018-10-21 Permalink

      And are we supposed to dictate that the needs of a renter outweigh the needs of a family?

    • Kate 11:17 on 2018-10-21 Permalink

      Kevin, why bring in an emotionally loaded word like family? The buyer of a plex in the city is not just buying property, they’re undertaking becoming the landlord for other households. You mentioned sprawl above: it doesn’t help sprawl if someone buys a plex and throws one or more other households out to create one large dwelling.

      Anyway, I challenge you to find an actual circumstance where somebody converted a plex for his six children. It seems more typical to have an architect radically remodel a Plateau duplex into a single showplace dwelling for a childless couple.

Compose new post
Next post/Next comment
Previous post/Previous comment
Show/Hide comments
Go to top
Go to login
Show/Hide help
shift + esc
Translate »