Comments on: McGill’s Raphael Fischler: Village Griffintown too big, hurts downtown

By: Edward

Edward — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 04:57:00 +0000

My problem is that these guys are suburban mall developers and from reading some of their press releases, their core objective is to build a mall. The right developer would be looking at Griffintown as a residential project above all else. Furthermore, the right developer would be looking to build with a goal to make the area look as authentic/original as possible. This history of this neighborhood is too important to this city. The architecture and overall aesthetic of the proposed buildings is reminiscent of bad 1950’s low cost housing projects.

By: Toastedmaster

Toastedmaster — Thu, 13 Dec 2007 02:55:26 +0000

I think our goal should be to make a perfect addition to Montreal. Not to simply maximize the tax revenues; make a large covered garden the jewel of our underground city. Have 1500 eco friendly units rather than 3860 units in an overfilled space. Maybe some of the Chinese planned city (Dongtan) concepts deserve consideration.

By: TheWhatNow?

TheWhatNow? — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 18:40:20 +0000

No one is complaining about the project, just the lack of transparency. I hope this project goes through, but not without publicly asking and answering the big questions that Prof Fischler asks. I was surprised to see the article disappear, and am relieved that it has reemerged. Call it a conspiracy theory if you will, but ajkandy has educated me on how website architecture functions, and now I hope we can start talking about the Griff’s architecture openly and intelligently.

By: BruB

BruB — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 17:34:15 +0000

You’re right and I apologies.
As for my geographical situation. I grew up in Verdun, Was raised in St-henri, Griffintown, Pointe-St-charles. I jsut purchase a brand new building on Ontario St. in hoMa. I actually know the area we are talking about probably more than most people complaining about it.

By: neath

neath — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 17:22:09 +0000

In Montreal citizens have no input into projects. “Public consultations” are only held after all the development parties have tasted the trough and are poorly publicized and attended. Tremblay is hurt – he got his arse kicked over the Casino and Parc avenue, the guy has to be half crazy to just ram something through. And the guy is right, building a city mega project by mega project only creates more isolation between areas and everything becomes more or less the same. It’s a tried and true formula that has worked really well for every mega boring city on the planet.

By: ajkandy

ajkandy — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 15:39:38 +0000

BruB, It isn’t “some,” it’s just one guy. Don’t feed the troll, as they say.

And do you live in this neighborhood? If you’d, say, bought a 19th-century townhouse and spent precious time and money restoring it (with all the permits it requires, being a heritage building), etc., only to discover the city wants to plunk a Wal-Mart literally in your backyard — if not expropriate your house for demolition — wouldn’t you be a tad, well, concerned?

Nobody’s against developing Griffintown, but by all standards of judgement, it isn’t a good plan.

1. The citizens were not consulted, and the plan presented as a fait accompli.
2. There was no public debate over the form, scale and timeframe of development.
3. There is only the vaguest nod to heritage preservation, and if the plans are to be interpreted correctly, they want to move a former public washroom to turn it into a Griffintown Museum — hardly respectful.
4. The plan, and the acquisition of land by numbered companies, favours only a single developer, whose track record to date is a rather dismal suburban mall.
5. From an architectural and aesthetic point of view, the proposed buildings are average at best, cheap at worst.
6. From an urbanist perspective, until we are shown otherwise, we have to assume the retail component, aside from one “mixed use” street, will basically be an inward-facing shopping mall; with blank walls facing the other streets.
7. Knowing what we know now about future energy availability, are these buildings sustainable? Is the economic model behind them (drive-in shopping) sustainable? If not, then we could end up with a big white elephant.

By: BruB

BruB — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 12:29:06 +0000

After whining against a good plan, now some of you guys are into a conspiracy theory against your own Gazette. Although entertaining, you are also killing hope of credibility for a citizen group that actually believed what they are whining about.

By: TheWhatNow?

TheWhatNow? — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 20:57:47 +0000

I agree, there is much incompetence at that newspaper. I hope they get their act together.

By: ajkandy

ajkandy — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 20:05:41 +0000

I’m not trying to make up excuses for anybody — I just don’t see a case for conspiracy, more one of incompetence!

By: TheWhatNow?

TheWhatNow? — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 19:56:32 +0000

I dont want to dwell on this, but it seems youre making excuses up for the Gazette that are not quite plausible considering that their November archives are machine-readable. But who knows, perhaps the excuses are legitimate. I dont want to begin assuming how the inner workings of canada.com function, lets just say the article got “lost somehow”, as we wait for it to reappear…. should I hold my breath?

Is there a way to contact the Gazette and obtain explanations for this retraction?