Updates from March, 2017 Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • Kate 16:29 on 2017/03/04 Permalink | Reply  

    A woman knocked down by a car on Sherbrooke Street East on Friday night has died in hospital.

     
  • Kate 13:29 on 2017/03/04 Permalink | Reply  

    The theory was that young people party in town, mate, swim upstream to the suburbs to reproduce, then move back to town after the offspring have matured. But numbers show they never do move back to town.

     
    • John B 17:45 on 2017/03/04 Permalink

      We just have to think of all the empty-nesters we know that never moved back into town to prove this. Of everyone I know, I think I know of one couple that sold their house in the suburbs and moved back into town once the kids were gone, and it took 15 years for them to do it, (and they’re in Edmonton).

    • Brenda 19:18 on 2017/03/04 Permalink

      The suburbs often render their long-term occupants “unable” to co-exist in an urban environment – tolerance for different types, social skills, a love of walking… it can all atrophy.

    • JaneyB 20:59 on 2017/03/04 Permalink

      Also, people like their neighbours. They raise their kids together, share home renovation tips, complain about city hall etc. They get caught up in the events of each others’ lives. That kind of familiarity is a nice thing. The constant social churn of city life is not appealing to everyone.

    • Faiz Imam 03:15 on 2017/03/05 Permalink

      On the other hand, the supply of housing in the core is high and is getting higher all the time, and those units are for the most part occupied. So *someone* is certainly living in the city.

      Rental vacancy is low and despite the massive building boom, the housing prices have not plummeted. So not really a problem, honestly. If those people really did want to move back, that just makes gentrification worse.

      Also this is why I’m a major proponent of urbanising the suburbs as well as increasing the size of the core. A lot of people are happy out in the burbs and would like to stay there. Giving them better environments is essential to a more sustainable city.

    • SteveQ 10:50 on 2017/03/05 Permalink

      Like Faiz Imam said. It’s not really a problem because somebody must be moving to the city considering all the condo towers being built near the Bell Centre (and more to come), in Griffintown (more to come), in the QDS (more to come) etc…

      Yes it is mostly the 18-30 years old I would say but the boomers are more likely to move near the new condos near the Lachine Canal/Atwater market, Little Italy/Jean-Talon market and the Triangle. Maybe not as much as expected, granted.

      The boomers and their car, it won’t change. They can’t envision living without a car in the driveway therefor it will only be with futur generations that the move to the city from the burbs will happened in greater numbers.

      And then comes into play public transit. You can live for cheaper near the Montmorency/Cartier/De la Concorde stations in Laval than to live in Rosemont or the eastern part of the Plateau or most of NDG….and still get to downtown faster than them!

    • ant6n 11:04 on 2017/03/05 Permalink

      If we accept that the only way is urbanification of the suburb and building transit there … then we should really do a better job of it. There’s very little dense, human scale, livable community building when it comes to current projects, one trying to outdo the next one in copying the worst ideas of 60s ‘urbanism’ – always with some greenwashing thrown in, presented in renderings of greenery, full of people and no cars.

      In the meantime, Montreal is full of brownfields and other spaces that could be developed, a lot of them near metro stations.

    • rue david 13:35 on 2017/03/05 Permalink

      the low hanging fruit is to turn single family homes in places like saint michel and ahunstic into wood frame 3-4 story multi-family buildings containing 12-16 units, selling at 130-150k per unit. the pricey concrete high rises that you see around the bell center or the mid rises in griffintown, these aren’t the sorts of things that can be duplicated across the city, there just isn’t widespread demand for housing that costly.

    • Phil C. 14:04 on 2017/03/05 Permalink

      I totally agree with Brenda on this one. Living in the suburbs along side other people who also love the suburbs eventually makes the city seem scary. They’re too stuck in their ways. Also not quite sure where I saw this study, but I remember reading that the suburbs slowly makes you more conservative (probably due to less exposure to different types of people and living situations).
      On another note, why doesn’t Montreal have a greenbelt???

    • Kate 15:36 on 2017/03/05 Permalink

      Phil C., what I know of suburbanites also suggests they’re prone to a growing regard for property values and parking rather than more collective feeling, but if I had a big house on a generous lot with a back yard pool for summer dips I can see how it would change me too.

  • Kate 13:27 on 2017/03/04 Permalink | Reply  

    CBC has a profile of a benevolent optician, although I’m not sure it does this kind of thing much good to publicize it more widely than the project can handle.

     
  • Kate 12:52 on 2017/03/04 Permalink | Reply  

    Radio-Canada looks back at the public amusements Montreal has had over many years, with some vintage photos. But even though the title says “375 years” it doesn’t go back before the Crystal Palace, built in the 1860s and burned down (in its second location) in 1896.

     
  • Kate 12:50 on 2017/03/04 Permalink | Reply  

    CBC’s Jonathan Montpetit looks at Quebec’s far right groups, which went a little quiet after the Quebec City mosque attack but haven’t gone away. Protests are going on Saturday between La Meute and antifascist groups.

    Later reports on the demo clash from CTV, TVA (with video), La Presse.

    Also a wrapup from CBC on the various far-right groups’ behaviour and apparent intentions. Jonathan Montpetit is making something of a specialty of keeping an eye on these groups, and a good thing too.

     
  • Kate 11:40 on 2017/03/04 Permalink | Reply  

    Policy changes in Washington may have repercussions here as the U.S. reduces its Environmental Protection Agency’s oversight of water quality in the Great Lakes – the source of the St. Lawrence.

     
    • JaneyB 13:39 on 2017/03/04 Permalink

      Yup. Huge problem. Maybe states have some control though. Also, acid rain might be coming back…if coal returns to Appalachia.

    • Faiz Imam 03:18 on 2017/03/05 Permalink

      The mining can start up if it wants, but the future of coal fired power plants is sealed regardless of how many regulations they get rid of.

      It’s simply cheaper to build gas fired plants, and renewables are eating away at their profitability as well.

      The promised future of coal is a lost cause, the only question is how many more years it’ll take to die.

  • Kate 11:22 on 2017/03/04 Permalink | Reply  

    Don Macpherson looks at the scrap over the federal Liberal nomination in St-Laurent.

     
c
compose new post
j
next post/next comment
k
previous post/previous comment
r
reply
e
edit
o
show/hide comments
t
go to top
l
go to login
h
show/hide help
shift + esc
cancel