Updates from July, 2017 Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • Kate 23:35 on 2017/07/05 Permalink | Reply  

    Via Reddit, a nice piece on The Main blog about a man who wants to revive the neon sign.

     
  • Kate 23:28 on 2017/07/05 Permalink | Reply  

    Amor Ftouhi remained silent in U.S. court on Wednesday, which meant the judge entered a plea of not guilty in the stabbing of an airport cop in Michigan two weeks ago. The officer was badly wounded in the neck, but is recovering and out of hospital.

     
  • Kate 23:23 on 2017/07/05 Permalink | Reply  

    Alex Galchenyuk has signed a three-year contract with the Canadiens. This follows news of Alexander Radulov leaving for Dallas.

     
    • rue david 01:34 on 2017/07/06 Permalink

      Radulov would have been a great score on a one year contract, which is what I bet the have offered him. It’s a shame, a great player. Though, I guess it frees up the roster space for possibly a second Quebecker.

    • rue david 01:39 on 2017/07/06 Permalink

      And the reason is that he’s radulov.

  • Kate 19:52 on 2017/07/05 Permalink | Reply  

    A borough initiative to bring more green to the streets of St-Léonard is being vigorously rejected by some homeowners. I think it may be a cultural tendency to like very stark stone surfaces with no greenery showing, because the environs of where I live have been landscaped like this and it’s in a spirit of slight defiance that I’ve put pots and planters on top of the masonry.

     
    • Chris 21:23 on 2017/07/05 Permalink

      “[the borough] said green space is good for the environment, helps rainwater to drain and reduces heat in the summer.” All true. Strange then, from the photo, that the borough has decide to have wide streets, narrow sidewalks, and not a single tree! :)

    • Matt G 00:27 on 2017/07/06 Permalink

      Is it cheaper to pay the fine?

    • Ian 09:23 on 2017/07/06 Permalink

      “A cultural tendency”? You think? Did nobody tell the borough there are Italians living there? Next they’ll be banning cement lions!

    • Bert 14:03 on 2017/07/06 Permalink

      Assuming that the house is as-built, what gets me in this sort of situation is that the new house (new development) was built but a construction company, who had get plans approved. There are a number of permutations regarding plans, approvals, buyers change requests, but all-in-all this should have been spotted by the city inspector before signing off on the house.

      Because the inspection process was either glanced over or completely skipped it is now the homeowner who is on the hook and who has little to no recourse against the builder and even less the city inspector. But of course, when the house is re-sold, all vices can be held against the previous owner.

    • Daisy 05:49 on 2017/07/07 Permalink

      The article in La Presse says that the developer delivered the house only, no landscaping. Then the homeowners had all these paving stones, etc put in. (Some of them hired landscaping companies.) So it’s nothing to do with the builder.

    • ant6n 11:51 on 2017/07/07 Permalink

      From the la Presse article:

      «Vous avez des maisons de 1 million ici avec un côté de la rue où les gens ne peuvent jamais se stationner. Ça n’a aucun sens. Plusieurs des familles ont deux ou trois voitures. On doit les stationner!», ajoute la résidante, en colère.

  • Kate 13:23 on 2017/07/05 Permalink | Reply  

    Molson has announced plans for a big new brewery somewhere other than the Notre-Dame Street location where it’s been since the 18th century. The Journal has a list of factoids about the installation.

    In tangentially related news, it’s exactly a century since the WWI death of Percival Molson, for whom the stadium is named. It’s likely his record as youngest person ever to play on a Stanley Cup-winning team – at age 16 – will never be beaten.

     
    • ant6n 14:30 on 2017/07/05 Permalink

      Nice. can we urbanize the area now?
      (While hopefully preserving some of the industrial heritage)

    • Kevin 17:27 on 2017/07/05 Permalink

      If it is changed (there must be heritage value to the building though, right) I hope it is something that provides access to the waterfront

    • ant6n 08:46 on 2017/07/06 Permalink

      Just looking at it in Google Maps, it looks that there are a bunch of buildings that probably have heritage value, and others that are newer, and things like chemical tanks. Some of them can probably be removed.

      I’d say the important things are to make the area more permeable to people (cut-throughs through the brewery), provide access to the water-front, reduce the impact of the A720 (i.e. turn t more into an urban blvd), then overlay a human-scale streetgrid (including on the radio canada area) and develop it.

      There’s some precedent for integrating breweries with cities (like this example in Berlin, although that’s much older and a more uniform heritage complex: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kulturbrauerei)

    • Ian 09:25 on 2017/07/06 Permalink

      The old distillery district in Toronto was turned into an extremely trendy area – it was an industrial wasteland in the 80s. http://www.thedistillerydistrict.com/

    • Blork 10:30 on 2017/07/06 Permalink

      The railroad tracks present more of a barrier to the waterfront than the buildings do. Frankly, I’m not sure what can be done with that area aside from putting a bajillion dollars into it to make it fancy and trendy.

      Challenges include those railroad tracks, plus the industrial nature of the waterfront along that stretch. This is no beach and never will be. There’s no greenery, and likely hasn’t been for 200 years. It’s not really a walkable area because there is virtually no residential area within strolling distance.

      Bearing in mind that we have a lively and vital shoreline just a kilometre west of there (the Old Port area), I’m not sure what can be done here short of totally clearing the area and starting from scratch, or alternatively, creating a fairly isolated “industrial chic” development that preserves the buildings but isn’t really walkable or accessible.

      The Kulturbrauerei development in Berlin had the advantage of being one cluster of nice human-scale buildings completely surrounded by residential areas. Distillery District in Toronto is a closer equivalent (same problem with tracks, except in Toronto the tracks could be ignored because there was no reason to go in that direction — no “destination” like a waterfront — plus it was North-American industrial).

      It will be interesting to see how it develops.

    • Blork 11:15 on 2017/07/06 Permalink

      Another challenge is that the only human-scale access to the Molson Brewery area is from the west (the Old Port). Approaching from the north you have to cross René-Lévesque, Viger, and Boul. Ville-Marie (the 720). That is a formidable stack of barriers, and those streets are not going to go away, nor are they going to change in any significant manner.

    • Kevin 14:00 on 2017/07/06 Permalink

      All I want is a dock. Just gimme a 50 m long pier-but longer would be better.
      There are a good number of people who walk around that neighbourhood already, hanging out at the metro or the pathetic park. With a dock I could go enjoy the water at lunch

    • Mathieu 14:46 on 2017/07/06 Permalink

      I don’t think it’s as much a challenge as you put it, Blork. Sure, we won’t get an access to water from there, but we clearly could get something done over the train tracks to hide them and get access to an unblockes view. That was part of Projet Montréal’s proposition during the last elections. After all, most of the buildings there are to be demolised.

      And with this project and Radio-Canada (and Télé-Québec leaving their building and the vast empty lots under the bridge), the enhanced Notre-Dame project that never seems to get done will resurface fast enough, along with that tram on René-Lévesque.

    • Blork 15:23 on 2017/07/06 Permalink

      Kevin, while the Metro is only 800 metres away, that 800 metres includes crossing René-Lévesque, Viger, and Boul. Ville-Marie (the 720). That’s something like 13 lanes of traffic; not something most people will want to do on a casual lunchtime stroll. (Although the pedestrian-unfriendly rue Panet crosses over some of it). And you won’t get your dock. The river is swift and dangerous along that stretch, so there’s no way there will be any sort of water access.

      Mathieu, those are functioning train tracks, so you can’t just cover them up. You could build pedestrian overpasses, but those do not make for the kind of pedestrian wonderland that some people think will magically arise.

      I’m not saying the area can’t be developed. I’m just saying it will be difficult and expensive, and no matter what happens it will not make everyone happy.

    • ant6n 15:57 on 2017/07/06 Permalink

      It’s easily conceivable that the port activities will move east. Getting over the track is easy – just build a deck 6m above them. Toronto is doing over their downtown yards. Something similar is happening in Brooklyn.

      There probably doesn’t need to be a railyard there, either. There’ve also been proposals to reroute some of the rails (direct connection between Outremont spur and eastern port) to reduce the amount of traffic at that particular spot.

      Improving the streetscape is also not an unusual thing.

    • Bill Binns 17:15 on 2017/07/06 Permalink

      +1 @Kevin – For an island city we sure do have a dearth of docks. I would love a big, wooden California style dock (I think pier is a better term).

    • Kate 21:13 on 2017/07/06 Permalink

      Docks and piers, do they usually get built out onto a big and sometimes ruthless river like our Mighty St. L.?

    • Blork 22:49 on 2017/07/06 Permalink

      No. They get built out onto lakes and oceans, and usually from a beach.

    • Kevin 23:16 on 2017/07/06 Permalink

      @Blork
      I work in that ‘hood and see plenty of people walking around in places that are less than hospitable. (Which is why I know that the 720 doesn’t quite reach Papineau, the eastern edge of the property… and which is where musicians practice and record).

      Just a block or two east you can get close enough to see the water through the fence and the tracks, but it’s not enough, and it is sadly disappointing, as several tourists have pointed out.

      But just imagine how great it would be to walk to a dock and jump on a boat to get to St. Helen’s island… or PAT… or Lachine.

  • Kate 13:17 on 2017/07/05 Permalink | Reply  

    High river levels are keeping beaches closed around Montreal.

     
    • carswell 14:34 on 2017/07/05 Permalink

      Biked out to Parc René-Lévesque in Lachine on Sunday. I’ve been biking in that area since the early 1980s and the water level in Lac Saint-Louis is higher than I’ve ever seen it, even higher than during the recent floods.

      On the Lachine harbour side of the park, there’s usually a drop of a metre or more from edge of the land to the surface of the water. On Sunday, the water was pretty much even with the land. And when motor boats went by, their wakes sloshed water up onto the lawn.

    • Blork 15:28 on 2017/07/05 Permalink

      It’s crazy that it’s July and the water is still so high. Cycling along the river’s edge on the south shore (Longueuil), the water right now is a bit higher than what it usually is in spring when everyone says “OMG the water is so high!” A month ago it was right up to the bike path in a few places, which I’ve never seen before.

    • thomas 17:10 on 2017/07/05 Permalink

      Wasn’t the flow at the Cornwall Lock increased last month to alleviate high water levels in Lake Ontario?

    • Kevin 17:29 on 2017/07/05 Permalink

      Thomas is right. The water on the lake will likely be high for most of the summer

    • Kate 19:26 on 2017/07/05 Permalink

      Or longer. A quick Google picked up this insurance-focused story on how the levels may stay high for the rest of the year.

  • Kate 07:26 on 2017/07/05 Permalink | Reply  

    Valois Village is to get a new jungle of condo buildings, tucked in between autoroute 20 and the railway. Cosy! But developers know that if you build condos on the island of Montreal, they will sell, even if 18-wheelers are skimming past your living room window at point blank range.

     
    • Blork 09:07 on 2017/07/05 Permalink

      Well, not quite point-blank. The 20 is about 150 metres away, but the on-ramp from Sources is pretty much spitting distance from the eastern-most building. Not mentioned is that this development is perfectly in line with the busiest runway at PET, a mere 1500 metres away. Good luck with that.

      On the other hand, it’s walking distance to Delibee’s! #smokedmeat

    • LJ 09:09 on 2017/07/05 Permalink

      From the picture it looks like both the railway and the highway are to the south of the buildings. The road curving around the condos at the bottom of the photo is an on ramp. So the 18 wheelers will be some distance away to the south, but it will be a generally noisy place to live if you open your windows a lot.

    • Bill Binns 09:19 on 2017/07/05 Permalink

      It’s now possible to effectively soundproof a building against almost any type of noise. I have stayed in hotels that were right next to busy highways or railroad tracks and not heard a thing. Of course you have to be ok with keeping windows sealed shit for any of this to be effective.

    • ant6n 09:47 on 2017/07/05 Permalink

      Near the on-ramp which is up-hill, where all the engines work extra hard to make it up there. Vroom-vroom! Don’t raise your kids there, they may grow up short and coughy.

      The image illustrates nicely how large buildings-in-the-park don’t get you density. Only about a quarter of the land is built on. The buildings themselves have 7 floors, but probably waste a lot of space for utilities (stair cases, elevators). So the population density will be lower compared to a compact street-grid with triplexes.

    • Max 10:07 on 2017/07/05 Permalink

      And don’t forget that the Sources-20 interchange is on TQ’s to-do list. It’s well past it’s best-before date. Residents there will likely be looking at a nasty couple of years of construction, starting as soon as the Turcot’s done I suppose.

    • Chris 10:21 on 2017/07/05 Permalink

      For people that drive to everything they do, being near a highway is a plus, not a minus. :(

    • Blork 10:28 on 2017/07/05 Permalink

      Yes, but there’s “near” and there’s “on top of.”

    • Raymond Lutz 11:23 on 2017/07/05 Permalink

      Il faut être fou pour déménager près d’une autoroute! Euh non, c’est l’inverse 8-)

      https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/01/05/living-close-to-high-traffic-roads-raises-dementia-risk-study.htm

    • Viviane 12:18 on 2017/07/05 Permalink

      There’s an “l” missing at the end of Raymond’s link. Highways, airports and industrial sites are all places I would avoid living close to.

    • Blork 12:55 on 2017/07/05 Permalink

    • Raymond Lutz 15:01 on 2017/07/05 Permalink

      Merci à vous deux! Speaking of URLs, can I use html anchor tags in comments like Viviane did? I’ll try right here: Half Paris, half Brooklyn – is Montréal the perfect city?

    • Jack 09:36 on 2017/07/06 Permalink

      I think an even scarier and uglier space is what is known as ” The Triangle” the only real saving grace is its proximity to “Villages des Valeurs”.

    • Kate 19:33 on 2017/07/06 Permalink

      Jack: And Pushap, don’t forget!

    • Dhomas 06:31 on 2017/07/07 Permalink

      I prefer Pushap on Paré street, tbh. Can they build some condos right on top of the Décarie, instead? ;)

    • Kate 12:44 on 2017/07/07 Permalink

      Dhomas, that’s where the Triangle is.

  • Kate 07:24 on 2017/07/05 Permalink | Reply  

    A new secret report says nobody at the MUHC wants another hospital merger forced on them by Gaétan Barrette. Barrette is also intent on forcing Ste-Justine into the CHUM even though nobody there wants that to happen.

    Barrette’s mania for centralization may be based on the neoliberal holy grail of saving money, but when all the doctors in Montreal are saying these are bad ideas and no good for patients even an ego like his needs to back off and listen.

    Meanwhile, many young graduating surgeons are considering leaving the country to practise since there’s a shortage of facilities here. How bad does Barrette’s management of medicine here have to get?

     
    • Ian 09:58 on 2017/07/05 Permalink

      What’s really weird about that is that Ste-Justine has just finished an extremely extensive renovation & expansion.

      “The portion of the project that involves new construction has been estimated to cost $446 million. That phase includes a four-level underground parking lot, a 14-room surgery department, a 23-bed birthing unit, two auditoriums and two large indoor courtyards. In addition, the hospital will have a total of 419 beds in single rooms.

      The research centre, which is also affiliated with the Université de Montréal, will have 82 labs for basic research. Once completed, the project will confirm Ste-Justine as the largest mother-child centre in Canada and the second-largest children’s hospital in North America.”
      http://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/costs-of-ste-justine-hospital-expansion-rise-more-than-400-per-cent

      Not to mention the fact that having 2 children’s hospitals just makes sense in terms of serving a wider swath of geography. It’s also weird in that the Children’s was the “English” hospital and Ste-Justine is the “French” hospital, I would have thought that there would be some language-politics reasons not to merge them that would be fairly obvious especially to Barrette, a francophone radiologist at Montreal’s Hôpital Maisonneuve-Rosemont.

    • Blueeyes 10:38 on 2017/07/05 Permalink

      I really don’t understand why we insist that physicians work crazy hours and have no not considered option of 2-3 part time positions instead of 1 main position. Wouldn’t you prefer a surgeon that works 3 days per week and has time to recharge/ be a human (spend time with their family) instead of a sleep deprived individual working themselves into the ground? Why are other workers and professions able to have part time positions but not doctors? They would work less so be paid less- as they work fee for service or occasionally hourly this would be cost neutral and benefits the population…

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