City construction contract costs fall fast
The city is watching construction contract costs fall between 20% to 33% at a time when they were expected to rise slightly with inflation. Is it sharper competition, or is it that the media have shone a bright light on previous dodgy bidding procedures?
Taylor C. Noakes 08:30 on 2012/08/27 Permalink
I wonder if this means all those condo projects are actually going to be completed?
After just coming back from Vancouver, I think we’ve fallen way behind in terms of urban high-rise luxury properties. More property owners in the urban core is beneficial to everyone, and our situation is ideal because the focus is exclusively on redeveloping parking lots.
Even better – if construction costs are falling as a result of higher media scrutiny, then some of these projects will be able to market themselves as ‘Mafia Free’. They write that on packages of pasta in Sicily.
Kate 08:48 on 2012/08/27 Permalink
This is just public contract costs, TCN – contracts the city is signing, not private development costs. But there are a lot of new downtown high-rise condo projects going up now or soon that will remake our cityscape and, I suspect, eventually make Mount Royal invisible from the waterfront.
Marc 09:10 on 2012/08/27 Permalink
I thought the building height restrictions forbade blocking the mountain sight from the river?
Kate 09:23 on 2012/08/27 Permalink
In theory there’s a rule that no building can be taller than Mount Royal but that’s not quite the same issue as not blocking the view, as this item clarifies – buildings further up the hill would have to be shorter, for example, to preserve the view. I don’t know how clearly all of this is enshrined in zoning laws or if it’s just a general guideline.
Kevin 11:31 on 2012/08/27 Permalink
Ask and ye shall receive
Taylor C. Noakes 11:42 on 2012/08/27 Permalink
Kate –
Thanks for the clarification. At least this means city construction costs associated with the new private developments will be reasonable, unless the city, in its infinite wisdom, plan to transfer lighting, paving, connecting and beautification to the private sector as well.
Regarding sight-lines, I noticed that several of the major residential projects will be built in a straight line along de la Montagne (north to south I think it goes Icone (twin towers), Rocabella (twin towers), l’Avenue (single tower on a high base) and Tour des Habs (ditto). So it won’t obscure the view that badly, and of course the view from the street would remain the same, albeit with taller ‘frame’. The only views that will be obstructed, come to think of it, will be those of the lower-floor condo units.
Oh well.
If there’s a market, who am I to complain?
That said, it would be nice if these weren’t exclusively designed for single & double occupancy, a few family-sized units would make for an excellent mix, though that would require a lot more input from the city in terms of planning and services.
Kate 14:45 on 2012/08/27 Permalink
The city has occasionally made noise about how it’s too bad that people feel they need to move to the burbs before having kids, but if they want to keep those people, or some of them, they’ll have to do exactly that – make sure there’s room for families, that places like Griffintown don’t get built up without daycares and schools and play parks.
Bill Binns 15:40 on 2012/08/27 Permalink
I’m not sure anything can be done to convince large numbers of people with kids to stay in the city. The vast majority of parents believe that kids require at least 500 sq ft of private grass to thrive. The housing that families are looking for isn’t just about “X number of bedrooms” it’s about having enough total square footage so that you may be able to hear yourself think from time to time. No three or four bedroom apartment in a high rise downtown can compete with a two story detached home in the burbs on this point.
C_Erb 17:44 on 2012/08/27 Permalink
People are starting to complain about their views.
Taylor C. Noakes 21:33 on 2012/08/27 Permalink
@Bill
I don’t disagree with you in principle, but consider how much of what we currently consider as urban was not that long ago semi-suburban. Proximity, rather than building type or style, define the layers of suburbia.
I would argue there are many, many cities and parts of our own city wherein a nuclear family with children could be very happy living in the urban core if the appropriate services and green space were available. Perhaps not in a Modernist high-rise however.
It seems to me that the ideal urban residential housing type is what we value highly anyways – Victorian row-houses, duplexes and triplexes. What defines the Plateau, the Mile End, Saint-Henri and NDG could easily be modernized and transfered back into the urban core. If we want to secure families for the city, perhaps mixing in such styles with towers is the happy medium we’re looking for.
It would certainly make Griffintown more marketable if the building styles seemed more authentic and less imported.
And of course, more parks and playgrounds and green spaces in the urban core is good for everyone, not families.
But schools, libraries, cultural and community centres, daycares and a host of other family-oriented services will be required to compel families to purchase and own property in the city.
Kate 23:47 on 2012/08/27 Permalink
Kevin, thanks for the facts on this. It’s a topic that comes up here periodically.
C_Erb, I linked that views thing when it was first posted. It’s an inevitability with the proliferation of new condo towers.
TCN, you’re right about the definition of suburbs changing, but Montreal has a factor most cities don’t, which is that as an island there will always be a psychological barrier defining city vs. suburb. But I’m sure 100 years ago that people who moved up to Mile End and past the tracks into Little Italy felt they were moving to a kind of suburb, and the development of Rosemont and Villeray along tram lines must’ve been felt to be a kind of sprawl too, and yet now these are all felt to be basic parts of the central city.
Not sure where I’m going with this, mostly acknowledging your point that the psychological urban/suburban line changes over time.
dwgs 10:00 on 2012/08/28 Permalink
We’re raising two kids in NDG and it’s a great place to do it. Schools, libraries, green space, sports organizations, and my house is less than 5km to downtown. My plateau friends still refer to our place (jokingly I think) as the ‘burbs.
walkerp 10:04 on 2012/08/28 Permalink
I’m not so sure about this island boundary concept, Kate, because there is still a pretty strong distinction between all the communities that surround the mountain and the places far to the east and west, especially the west. I consider “The West Island” to be the suburbs, for sure. Everybody has to drive there, coming into the city for their kids is a big deal, they all have yards, etc.
Kate 11:46 on 2012/08/28 Permalink
True, walkerp. Where’s the boundary, though? Is Verdun a suburb? Lasalle? Lachine? Dorval? I’m not even sure. Maybe everything past the airport is a suburb?
Going the other way – what about Saint-Léonard? Anjou?
walkerp 12:37 on 2012/08/28 Permalink
If you have to have a car to get there comfortably, then it’s the suburbs.
ant6n 13:07 on 2012/08/28 Permalink
I’d say suburban is defined by the urban form and density. And area that consists only of detached and semi-detached buildings is suburban (at least in this century). Skyscrapers in the park may also be suburban.
Some call residential skyscrapers in downtown ‘vertical suburbs’, and I can’t completely disagree. Unlike some previous posters, I do think they can be problematic, and not just a win for everybody.
Kate 14:19 on 2012/08/28 Permalink
Montreal has kind of an interesting texture in some areas, like the old main street areas in places like Vieux-Longueuil, Saint-Lambert, Ste-Anne-de-Bellevue, Pointe-Claire Village – places that were towns in their own right before falling into the inevitable gravity of the metropolis.
ant6n 14:39 on 2012/08/28 Permalink
Strong poly-central urban areas is something you can find in some European cities as well, especially where urban rail lines helped preserve secondary centers. I’d argue that such an urban structure has advantages over the North American ultra high density+sprawl structures (e.g. everybody gets to live close to a center, more shorter distributed trips etc.).
jeather 18:46 on 2012/08/28 Permalink
Knowing people who grew up in the West Island, a lot of people who were teens there will do anything to avoid making their children grow up living there, especially once they have teenagers themselves. I wonder if there is some sort of cyclical thing.