Montreal City Weblog

Kate 16:38 on 2022-05-31 Permalink Reply  

• DeWolf 17:08 on 2022-05-31 Permalink

  I mean… we need more housing. I don’t see why the city felt the need to so drastically restrict the area’s density. But there do need to be strong planning guidelines so we don’t end up with a Griffintown-style free-for-all that the city needs to spend millions retrofitting so it’s actually a liveable neighbourhood.

  Give the developers extra density in exchange for lots of cash, and use that cash to build public amenities and social housing. It’s a formula that Vancouver and other cities have been using for years but for some reason Montreal still seems to struggle with it.

• Faiz imam 18:54 on 2022-05-31 Permalink

  Yeah. With its proximity to the city, natural beauty by the canal and proximity to transit, that area should be significantly built up.

  As long as the planning rules are in place to make sure the right physical and social infrastructure is available, I’d say go for it.

• Ephraim 19:25 on 2022-05-31 Permalink

  Let them increase density but at the same time, require more green areas and allow absolutely NO street parking at all. NONE. Make them put every damn parking spot underground. Because this is an area where they shouldn’t need parking, it’s walking distance to the REM. Zone it all residential with no AirBnB allowed. And require integrated bike trails that do not run along roads in the area.

• Blork 20:54 on 2022-05-31 Permalink

  It all sounds very nice, but say goodbye to your nostalgic views of the Five Roses sign. Just sayin.

• Michael 22:58 on 2022-05-31 Permalink

  No cars is actually an awful idea for people living there. People do invite guests and family over. They will have street parking for sure.

• JaneyB 08:09 on 2022-06-01 Permalink

  ‘New innovation zone’…ugh, I hear nonsense already eg warmed-over Richard Florida. They want to build another glorified urban dormitory for single tech workers with 80k jobs à la Griffintown. Yes, we do need more housing but it needs to be useful 4 1/2s and 5 1/2s that works for families of IGA clerks and bus drivers. Fewer granite countertops and more living and storage space for actual families. I would love to see a glossy pitch that targeted the housing-stressed workers that make this city – and every city – run.

• Su 11:04 on 2022-06-01 Permalink

  So what size are the “twice as many units” compared to the unit size in the city’s announced plan?

• Ephraim 11:08 on 2022-06-01 Permalink

  @Michael – There are many cities like this. The buildings build a small parking lot for visitors. Streets were not intended to be for parking, they were intended as a conveyance route. They are very expensive parking spaces, considering the cost to install them, upkeep them, plow them, etc. If you want visitor parking.. build it.

• Em 13:01 on 2022-06-01 Permalink

  The city has said it wants this area to remain an employment hub and I’m glad this vision seems to include keeping jobs in the area.

  I think density is fine but there is also a big lack of public amenities in Griffintown (schools, sports facilities, etc) which should be considered. This is also the site of the Black Rock, so ideally the proposed memorial park could be integrated in more than just a token way. I’m not a highrise fan but I do think this is an area where some higher buildings would be appropriate as long as they don’t block Five Roses.

  As for public transit…there really isn’t any there. The REM station is actually quite far and the buses are very infrequent (I live nearby). The promoters want a second REM station — wonder if they’re offering to pay for it. But no parking at all isn’t really realistic, especially because the site is right next to the Victoria Bridge. People are going to be commuting on and off the island to work there.

• Ephraim 15:44 on 2022-06-01 Permalink

  @Em – Didn’t say NO parking… I said no STREET parking. Make it all on site. The promoters want to build, then build to include parking. No street parking, minimal pavement, put it underground, put it in the building. Make this part of town where streets have no parking and there is plenty of grass. At best… no overnight parking. Which will also cut down on the ability to do AirBnB.

  There are PLENTY of places in this world that offer no parking and/or no overnight parking. You are limited to the parking that you own/and or your building provides. Parking, like everything else is a resource. Heck, right here on the Island, both Hampstead and Cote-St-Luc offer no overnight parking.

  Last time I saw the numbers, the cost to the city of Montreal was $27K per kilometer of paved lane. Let’s say that we need 5 meters to park a car, that’s 200 cars… the cost to the city is $135 per car, just to provide parking spaces and that’s a common cost… not the car owner’s cost. But, if instead each apartment included a parking space, they are worth $50K each and the tax on the spot is about $40 a year. So $135 in savings and $40 in taxes, for a net of $175 per annum.

  It also looks a lot nicer to not having cars all over the streets. Some cities have even moved public parking into underground lots with a children’s playground and green space above it… to free the streets entirely of cars.