Montreal City Weblog

Kate 08:51 on 2020-03-06 Permalink Reply  

• Clément 09:35 on 2020-03-06 Permalink

  This article is very ambiguous and I can’t help but be cynical.

  “…could be partially, or completely, demolished …” ==> We wanted to save it, but there is too much structural damage, so it has to come down.

  “…declare that some housing units in the new structure will be earmarked for affordable housing…” ==> That damp basement unit, next to the furnace, is quite affordable. But the other units will be offered at market price to ensure the whole project is viable. Also, breakfast bars.

  “…will be reserved for commercial space in favour of art galleries or similar enterprises…” ==> Starbucks is similar to an art gallery, right?

  “…can be saved and integrated into a new design — at a cost…” ==> We have this great, profitable project, but only if we get taxpayers’ money.

  “…The project is still in its early stages. Officials are waiting for further studies before plans can be finalized…” ==> Oh, ok, another 10 years of stalling it is, then.

• Tim 10:04 on 2020-03-06 Permalink

  Awesome (and accurate) translation Clément.

• dwgs 10:25 on 2020-03-06 Permalink

  Speaking as someone who walks by it twice a day for the last 20 years and has seen the accruing decay the first point is very likely true. I’d be surprised if they could save it without spending bajillions of dollars. Also, there’s nothing distinctive about the interior anymore.

• Michael Black 15:55 on 2020-03-06 Permalink

  Isn’t “Cinema V” part of the Sue Montgomery Saga?

  I saw something recently that gave a timeline, and she wanted the file on it, and that seems to have ballooned, at least by her version.

• Ian 20:33 on 2020-03-06 Permalink

  Yes, the borough planners were trying to railroad her into a condo development plan, and were acting like it was a done deal. By her account, which I believe. Lest we forget most of Rotrand’s old unelected development pals are still on staff.