Griffintown rejects residential project
Good sense, or NIMBYism? A majority of Griffintown residents have rejected giving permission for a residential project that needed a derogation for breaking zoning on setback and height.
-
Kate
Reply
SANTÉ QUÉBEC COVID NUMBERS
Deaths in Quebec:
20,015
As of April 17
Numbers from Santé Québec
Updated irregularly now
Canada Covid epidemiology update
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
- Kate on Parts of SRB Pie-IX fencing to be replaced
- Blork on Parts of SRB Pie-IX fencing to be replaced
- Tim on Logan Mailloux makes NHL debut with Habs
- mare on Rent: Legault is still at sea
- carswell on Second pepper spray in 2 days in metro
- MarcG on Car theft drama in the west end
- Francesco on REM to run short trains on weekends
☠️
INCIDENT TOTE BOARD 2024
Island homicides
8
Pedestrians killed
4
Cyclists killed
0
Pages
Other levels of gov’t
Sideblog projects
Enviro Montreal is a Twitter feed that follows environment news.
Archives
Pages rescued from montreal.com
Meta
DeWolf 19:03 on 2022-06-15 Permalink
What a monster! Eight storeys tall! And it preserves an entire block of historic buildings!
/s
Spi 20:17 on 2022-06-15 Permalink
A majority of Griffintown residents? A little over a 100 people showed up to vote and I’d be willing to wager that the vast majority of those who voted against this project live in the Arbora building right behind this proposal, which itself is 8 stories high.
Ridiculous Nimby’ism I hope the developer comes back with a project that doesn’t require any change in zonage but that’s hideously ugly.
Kate 20:53 on 2022-06-15 Permalink
When there’s this kind of referendum, Spi, it’s only people at addresses very close to the site in question that are eligible to vote. Given that, I think they had a good turnout.
Em 09:03 on 2022-06-16 Permalink
I’ve said it before, but I don’t think there’s much public tolerance for developers who ask for exceptions to zoning rules, or city administrations who use said rules as a negotiating tactic rather than an actual limit.
And I get it. If the height limits are too low, why not have a discussion on raising them? If there needs to be more rules to ensure green space and amenities, put them in.
People don’t have faith that the developers and city officials who negotiate these exceptions are doing it in their best interest, and with good reason. It feels too much like the developers are trying to bypass rules put in place to protect the neighbourhood. I understand there’s an argument for flexibility, but there’s also an argument for a consistent framework that applies to all, and public opinion seems firmly in the latter camp.
City officials should listen, and stop wasting everyone’s time.
Jim 09:05 on 2022-06-16 Permalink
I have nothing against a building where it is needed. I looked at the rendered image and in my opinion, it is a bad-looking block of concrete on top of the old facades. Design by committee I guess. Uninspiring and downright ugly you envision how it would look in thirty years (which is not that long)
Blork 11:47 on 2022-06-16 Permalink
As far as the aesthetics are concerned, it pretty much fits in with the new look of that neighbourhood, and is possibly nicer than most. (If that were a rendering from a project in Sweden we’d all be cooing and saying “why can’t we have buildings like that?”)
OTOH, nothing could be worse that this horror just around the corner:
https://goo.gl/maps/JkY6T84ycfCGTn418
I mean WTactualF? How can it even be legal to build something so ugly?
Kate 20:18 on 2022-06-16 Permalink
That’s a residence for the École de technologie supérieur, isn’t it? Looks like a prison, though.