Îlot Sainte-Catherine Ouest

The prposed project is ugly. Hiding facades with ugly buildings is unwarranted. Reducing zoning height in the downtown area is also counter productive. You should find a process to ensure the buildings that are proposed have architectural value. The problem with new construction in Montreal is not the zoning or the height, but the total mediocrity of design. Please check how many buildings made it into the professional architectural magazines or were awarded international prizes. On the residential side, none.

Hello, Please keep in mind while reading this that I live a block away from the area, hence I have spent several years analyzing the surrounding architecture and I'm super happy that I finally get to share my opinion about Montreal's shitty architecture and how it needs to be improved.

Theme 1: This location is in the heart of the Montreal downtown area, although, Montreal's downtown area is VERY weak aesthetics wise. We need to grow out the downtown area, hence I am all for the height limit increase. For that exact same reason, I am against the height limit decrease in surrounding areas. We will never get Montreal's downtown area modernized and we won't be able to catch up to Toronto. We should take Toronto as an example, their city architecture is so fascinating stunning. We need to use them as an example. We need to build taller building in the whole downtown area and not lower the height limit.

Theme 2: A lot of Montreal's downtown area is a huge eyesore with its disgustingly old architecture. I am a huge fan or modernized architecture, hence I'm love with this new design and I really hope that it will inspire more development projects in the near future. ALTHOUGH, I do understand the need to keep the heritage building intact, but it just doesn't fit in the theme of this build. PLEASE either demolish it or more it elsewhere, you're not only making it more difficult for yourselves when building the new structure, but you're creating an even worse eyesore than before. Modern architecture and old heritage building DO NOT go together. I'm sorry for saying this but that little building has to go (along with the two apartment complexes on the east and west of this new structure, they're disgustingly old, they need to go too...)

Theme 3: I am all for the creation of new housing, especially one with reduced pricing. The cost of downtown rent is going up faster than inflation, hence this will really help a lot of people.

Theme 4: For sure that Dollarama needs to stay there. It is an essential store in the area which is always packed. I rely on it on a weekly basis. More clothing stores would be a nice addition, the closest stores are at Alexis Nihon, but they don't have many interesting brands. We need more variety. It's annoying having to go all the way to the Eaton centre and surrounding to shop for clothing. We already have way too many restaurants in the area, so we don't need any more of those.

-The new additions on St. Catherine are generally acceptable, but need to make sure there is sufficient setback from the street so that sunlight is not blocked (especially important on the south side of the street).
-The number of affordable units should be larger, given the context of a tight housing market in Montreal.
-The number of parking spaces is too high. Inner-city buildings should minimize the amount of parking on premises (and especially on the street) as we try to move towards an ever more pedestrian and active-transport friendly city.
-What is the justification for decreasing heights in the rest of the neighbourhood? This seems like it will only drive land (and housing) valuations higher in an area where there is demand. Density enables urban areas to thrive and the height restriction seems antithetical to this effort. At the same time, if this prevents/restricts the development of luxury in favour of more affordable construction, then the restriction makes sense. If you have more justification for this change, please respond to my question.

EMPTY SUBMISSION - OPINION NON REÇUE

your idea seems to be to integrate the height of the new buildings with the existing high-rises to make the street more harmonious, and also to create more housing. I agree with both those goals, however, if the new buildings could retain a lower height, the existing blank wall would act as a canvas for a mural or even a light show. I really object to the rather harsh design of the facade and the proposed height of the buildings; it just feels very aggressive!

Sergakis is a slum lord not taking care of the properties he owns. 1280 St Marc should be part of the project as it is an eyesore to the street and should be integrated to the project.

The city shouldn't allow Sergakis to neglect the properties he owns and only care about new buildings.

The project should only be allowed if 1280 is integrated.

I object to building a fourteen storey condo on Ste Catherine Street between Fort and St Marc.

The proliferation of high-rise condos is turning the area into a concrete canyon where we have no sun or open skies. Cabot Square, once an oasis of fresh air and sunshine on Ste Catherine is now overshadowed by six hulking black twenty-five and thirty-storey towers.

Now this small opening of low buildings between Fort and St Marc is threatened by yet another large sun and sky-blocking condo complex, overshadowing everything on the street.

We are losing our connection with the natural environment, entombed by concrete monoliths, destroying any sense of human scale in our neighbourhood.

Obviously real estate developers want to maximize profits, but is that really all our city is about? Is that the only criterion for how our city functions today? Everywhere you look in central Montreal, there are massive condo developments, each one blocking the view and sun from the others around it. The Lachine canal, a wonderful long recreational area, is increasingly being chocked by wall-to-wall condos.

As for the future of my area - it’s pretty ironic to call it Shaughnessy “Village”, suggesting a neighbourhood, when it is being transformed into yet another faceless condo canyon.

The proposal reduces the height limits for other properties in the area. There is no justification for favouring this project over projects that other promoters may bring forward in the future. The current height limit was established for good reason and should be maintained.

The project is at the edge of the area subject to modification of the master plan. That area is inappropriate for the evaluation of change in density.

The density of the Shaughnessy Village has already suffered a great increase due to the Children's project and this project would further damage the quality of life in the neighbourhood without any benefit to the residents.

Architecturally, the proposed project does not harmonize with the surroundings. The proposed project will create yet one more uninspired modern block among many others. It is architecturally boring and does not merit the special consideration requested.

When promoter calls its project "distinctive" that is code for expensive. What the promoter considers below market rates will not be truly affordable. Measures must be put in place to ensure that the current residents of the area can afford to continue to live there.

The social housing units must be built at the same site. Moving economically marginalized people off site only further marginalizes them.

Measures must be in place to ensure that the promoter fulfills all promises made. A repeat of the breach of promise by the promoter of the Children's project must not be tolerated.

The project is targets an affluent clientele 55 years old and older. The size of the units should be increased and their number decreased. This will attract young families to live in the area. This will foster a more balanced and diverse population.