A woman was stabbed Friday evening in Hochelaga and a man with a known history of violence has been arrested.
Update Saturday morning: The woman has died. It still is not clear whether the man and woman had any connection before the attack.
And since I’m being picky, CTV’s description of the location as “on Aylwin St. near the intersection of Hochelaga and Sherbrooke streets” makes no sense. Hochelaga and Sherbrooke don’t intersect.
More details are coming out about the situation at the Metropolis on election night in 2012. The back doors of the venue were not watched by police and nobody told Pauline Marois’ bodyguards that she had received threats. But why has it taken nearly ten years and a civil suit by people working at the venue to uncover these failures in security?
Steve Faguy sums it up nicely. https://twitter.com/fagstein/status/1512147454526992399
Sorry, just saw that you posted the same tweet below, feel free to delete my comment…
No, it’s a good one.
Some Griff residents are unsettled about a 20‑storey tower planned for the area on the lot where Lucky Luke stable used to be. It’s the height of the building rather than the location that seems to have people unsettled.
Update on this story: Benoit Dorais says the city will vote to reject this project as it stands. In any case, it would have needed a derogation to build to that height in that location.
Meanwhile, in Pointe Claire (now there’s a segue you don’t see very often) people are unsettled about the Fairview project now that their mayor has nixed a new bylaw meant to suspend development in the area.
CTV says tentatively that “some” Montrealers are “uneasy” about the plans for the downtown REM. Montrealers like Mario Girard (Le REM de l’Est chez Disney) and a panel of experts convened by CDPQ Infra themselves (Le comité d’experts redoute une « fracture urbaine »)?
How many different ways do people have to say “This is fucked up” before major changes are made in these plans?
Wasn’t the REM de l’Est put indefinitely on hold 3 weeks ago? Why are they now releasing new videos of the same proposed barrier next to Chinatown? https://www.journaldemontreal.com/2022/03/17/le-rem-de-lest-mis-sur-pause
Curious, isn’t it?
> How many different ways do people have to say “This is fucked up” before major changes are made in these plans?
Maybe it’s because the city needs to grow (we’re in a housing and transportation crisis), and a minority should not have a veto over it based on their idea of aesthetics.
We’re in a transportation crisis?
Also, aesthetics are important. Not just for tourism, although that matters, but for the quality of life day to day for working Montrealers. It’s not just a realm for a minority of snobs.
Aesthetics matter, but many people don’t see an inherent aesthetic problem with an elevated metro guideway or 20 story tower. Other cities have them and it’s 100% not a problem!
As for transportation, yes, the eastern orange line is overcrowded, and the Rem de l’est will help alleviate that. Having more housing accessible by rapid transit also helps alleviate the housing crisis, because people can get to work and other destinations more easily. Driving in the city in general is also generally painful and it would improve our day to day quality of life for working Montrealers if there were fewer cars around and you didn’t have to drive to get places easily. We should be making it as easy as possible to live car-free.
You also have to consider the alternative, which is more development goes on in exurbs (paving over greenspace) and people drive all the way into the city from those exurbs. Seems like a bad idea!
I’m not sure why Pointe-Claire feels its only options are to either ban all new development or allow CF to do whatever it wants. There is currently no proposal to develop the Fairview Woods, so why doesn’t the city proactively strike a deal to protect it and turn it into a park? CF wants to build housing on its giant parking lot, right next to the REM station, which can only be a good thing. Surely Pointe-Claire can arrange a land swap for the forest, or give CF extra density on the site of the actual mall. Protecting green space from development shouldn’t mean protecting a shopping mall parking lot.
As for the Griffintown building…
// Dans les dernières années, l’arrondissement a fait part de son souhait de faire de ce site un parc et d’ainsi « redonner cet espace à la collectivité dans son ensemble », a souligné au Devoir le conseiller indépendant de Pointe-Saint-Charles, Craig Sauvé. Puisque ce terrain est aujourd’hui entre les mains de promoteurs immobiliers, l’arrondissement a cherché à trouver un compromis avec ceux-ci. C’est ainsi que l’administration du maire Benoit Dorais a proposé de rehausser la hauteur du projet immobilier afin qu’une partie du terrain soit réservée à un espace vert, explique M. Sauvé. La création d’une tour effilée, plutôt que d’un bâtiment large sur huit étages, pourrait aussi limiter les impacts sur les points de vue sur le canal de Lachine, avance-t-il, même si Héritage Montréal en doute. //
I’m not sure what the neighbours would prefer: a bulky eight-storey building that occupies the entire site, with no extra green space, or a 20-storey tower with a smaller footprint but public open space at the bottom? I have a feeling they don’t want any new development, period. Mario Girard wrote about this recently – the phenomenon of people who buy apartments in Griffintown and then spend all their free time trying to block the construction of any more housing around them.
https://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/chroniques/2022-04-01/griffintown-doit-avancer.php
I trust transit experts and people who actually LIVE in Montreal rather than an investment firm dictating transit in Montreal from Quebec city…
I’m not against expanding transit. Quite the opposite, I think @Dave is right in that we should be trying to “décongestionner” the orange line.
But they have the technology to put it underground since one spur is already planned to be this way. CDQPInfra are probably just waiting for provincial and municipal governments to say that they will foot the cost, so it doesn’t impact CDPQInfra’s bottom line.
@DeWolf I’m pretty sure I read somewhere that the Griffintown developer would not have to grant public access to the green space. Meaning, they could fence it off for their own residents. (I’d have to find the article).
I guess I personally believe that zoning rules are there for a reason. I don’t see the problem with an eight storey building. It’s far denser than what it was before, without towering over the canal and the surrounding buildings.
We need to densify, but why does that automatically have to mean highrises? There are plenty of studies showing that low to mid rise creates a lot of density at a more human scale level. I also believe densification can be achieved while still respecting the neighbourhood around it.
I’d like to see that article if you can find it because that’s precisely the opposite of what Benoit Dorais has been saying. In any case, it’s a moot point because the borough council decided to reject the project this morning in the face of public opposition.
Zoning rules are a framework but there’s a reason you can apply for a derogation. Sometimes it can work to the city’s advantage to give developers a bit of extra density or height in exchange for some kind of civic benefit. In this case, Dorais says the eight-storey “plein droit” project will privatize the banks of the outlet canal, whereas the 20-storey tower would have provided publicly-accessible green space:
https://www.facebook.com/dorais.benoit/posts/402280768390571
Being overly doctrinaire makes for bad cities. You’re absolutely right that medium-height buildings are an excellent form of density, but high-rises have a role to play too. Not many people like to admit it, but the Plateau has quite a few high-rises and they are a big part of why it’s significantly denser than other plex boroughs like Rosemont or Hochelaga.
I was trying to find some articles about how mid-rise vs high rise can address urban density. We can thank a lot of the “mid-rise mania” to Jane Jacobs. I agree to an extent that high rise apartments can work. The Vancouver West End area is a great example of how it can create a pleasant urban neighbourhood with a mix of high- mid- low- rises where the ratio of schools, daycares, parks, can meet the needs of residents. Of course, the West End had the benefit of time to get things right. What’s amazing is that it’s nice to walk through the residential streets even though the towers block the sun. This is due to lovely gardens and lawns at the base of every building and tree lined streets.
We know how Griffintown grew quickly and early urban planning was terrible with not enough daycares, schools, parks, pedestrian crossings, parking spaces, etc. to keep pace with the population growth. The 35 bus line was added to help connect Griffintown to the downtown core. I don’t know if things are being better now, so I could see how residents would be suspicious of a new 20-story tower.
Trying to think of some high rises in the Plateau. Though technically in Outremont, the apartment towers in the Cote Ste-Catherine area near Mont-Royal are eyesores. I don’t like walking in that area because it’s like a dead zone. I find them very incongruous with the low residential buildings in the area, and they really do block much of the sun. The towers only kind of work because it’s already a quiet, residential area.
On the other hand, the La Cité complex works because it’s integrated well and the area is bustling due to the proximity of McGill and the mixed use of restaurants, grocery stores, bars and the beloved Cinema du Parc. It helps that it’s already practically downtown, so it’s not incongruous at all.
I can’t imagine a high rise replacing the mid-rise multi unit complex in the East Plateau (Ave du Mont-Royal and Messier). My friend was savvy enough to purchase a unit in that complex some years ago and for a new complex, the developers did a good job of integrating that building in the neighbourhood as it’s provided affordable units for families and singles who want to live in the Plateau.
We need rules and guidelines but also enough flexibility to account for the unique needs of a given area.
Yes, that’s exactly it – we need flexibility. I think there are very few cases where a new high-rise would be appropriate on the Plateau. But in Ahuntsic or Ville Saint-Laurent or Pont-Viau, where there is a lot of low-density housing that is unlikely to be upzoned/redeveloped for political reasons? In that kind of context, a little cluster of high-rises near the metro stations can add a lot of density without disrupting most of the existing neighbourhood. A few three- or four-storey buildings aren’t enough if they’re lost in a sea of detached houses. For “gentle density” to work, the whole neighbourhood needs to be made up of three-storey buildings. That’s fine on the Plateau where the baseline density is already high. But in areas that are much less dense to begin with, you either need mass redevelopment with medium-density housing (very disruptive!) or a few clusters of very high density to make up for the low baseline.
This video does a good job of making the same point I’m trying to make: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFesAhBegvw
Of course I’m speaking in general terms. In the case of Griffintown, there isn’t really a need for more towers that aren’t part of the master plan, because the planned density is already quite high. But this particular project was a special case. The tower wasn’t proposed to add extra density, it was proposed to free up ground-level space along the canal. There’s already a 15-storey building across the street so it’s not like it would have been a drastic change, either.
I like Meezly’s analysis and reference to Vancouver West End, which I know too. The La Cite reference is interesting but I was a neighbor there and can say that it would not have become an integrated mix of restaurants grocery stores etc if it weren’t for tenants like myself who fought eviction notices that the developers were using in order to expand the high-rise complex – their vision was not what you see today.
Yes, that’s true. A lot of factors that help make an urban neighbourhood livable is due to community efforts of citizens. I believe a lot of what makes Vancouver’s West End a desirable area to live was due to various community efforts over the decades.
DeWolf: “…people who buy apartments in Griffintown and then spend all their free time trying to block the construction of any more housing around them. ”
They don’t just buy in Griffintown. They also LIVE there.
And by living there, they experience how problematic the lack of green space is. Their own condo tower might be perched right up to the canal itself… but for anyone walking a dog along the canal every day, it’s obvious that the current layout is insufficient for the increased demand put on it.
CAQ ministers Marguerite Blais and Danielle McCann will not be running again in October’s election, which tells you pretty much all you need to know about their awareness of problems at CHSLD Herron and their failure to act.
A family in the West Island is upset that their elderly mother was put in a hospital room with a Covid-positive patient at the Lakeshore General. According to a subhead on the CBC story, the 92‑year‑old now has the virus.
McGill is testing wastewater from its residences to monitor levels of Covid. No numbers or percentages are given, though.
Héma-Québec is running low on blood supplies because so many donors are cancelling appointments because they’ve got Covid.
Reply