It’s sobering how many interesting little neighbourhoods have been blasted out of existence by the Autoroute Ville-Marie (not the only cause, I know, but surely the major one.) Did Montréal have any analogues to Jane Jacobs? Was there a single figure here like Robert Moses in NYC who was the Prince of Urban Renewal Darkness? Or was it Death by Committee?
In the view aprés, one of the only interesting architectural elements is the stubby Empire State Building cousin – same architects, right?
The Art Deco building in the after shot is the Aldred Building, designed by Ernest Barott, of the venerable Montreal architecture firm of Barott & Blackadder. No connection to the Empire State Building, designed by Gregory Johnson and his firm Shreve, Lamb & Harmon.
I thought these before and after pictures were intended to help us understand the past and the present of our city, not as an open forum for haters of urban change. These renewals and urban developments had reasons. Some of them were not well thought, some of them were. There are many mistakes, and many great ideas in the history of urban development in our city. Why not instead of saying “Quel désastre!” every time we see one of these before and after pictures, we try to think how to make our city a better place, how to use the ideas from the past and the present to make a better future.
There was one of these pictures in which the “after” view was clearly better than the “before” view. No comments were posted on it. I guess it is easier for us to bash everything than to admire the good things and make constructive criticism.
There have been many comments about positive changes (recently, about St-Denis views). One I’d not is burying the horrible Hydro pylons. I think this particular horror has to do with the construction of the Bonaventure expressay, though, can’t see where else it could be on St-Urbain, which has remained properly urbanised iin the most part.
Don’t forget that some things we think of horrors can get better with time, as our tastes and understanding develop, and as development fills in and “repairs” the bits around. While I just recently bashed Émilie-Gamelin as a park, it is a lot better than the parking lot that was there before. The Quartier international repaired brilliantly the freeway cut, and made the walk from old montreal to the downtown core much more pleasant. I’ve even grown to like the Banque nationale building in Place d’Armes now that I know more about the events that led to its being built (basically to try to save Old Montreal against decline as the “new” downtown with its fancy office towers was being built). And I absolutely love Place Ville-Marie, and the Aldred building, which wouldn’t exist if we had had the “foresight” to prevent urban development.
That said, I don’t think any amount of time or education will make me like the Palais de justice :)
I’m not opposed to urban development. Émilie-Gamelin, despite its many problems (in terms of architecture, and the inevitable social-interaction issues between street people, office workers, students, festival-goers… was a huge improvement over that awful parking lot, and has become an interesting venue for shows and events.
Indeed, Quartier international was a generally positive example of urban development.
Up closer to where I live, I’ll be interested in how the new housing, park and social centre on the site just north of the railway bicycle path (a site between Rosemont, St-Hubert and the railway line between La Petite patrie works out. That might lend some new life to the southern end of Plaza St-Hubert.
Thanks, I like reading your comments :)
Tristou, I really like the Banque Nationale building. It rounds out the sense of gravity created by the other imposing buildings on Place d’Armes.
Now the Bank of Montreal building, on the other hand, is horrible. It was built around the same time as the BN one but it is frumpy and provincial. It also replaced a gorgeous post office.
9 comments
Quel désastre!
It’s sobering how many interesting little neighbourhoods have been blasted out of existence by the Autoroute Ville-Marie (not the only cause, I know, but surely the major one.) Did Montréal have any analogues to Jane Jacobs? Was there a single figure here like Robert Moses in NYC who was the Prince of Urban Renewal Darkness? Or was it Death by Committee?
In the view aprés, one of the only interesting architectural elements is the stubby Empire State Building cousin – same architects, right?
The Art Deco building in the after shot is the Aldred Building, designed by Ernest Barott, of the venerable Montreal architecture firm of Barott & Blackadder. No connection to the Empire State Building, designed by Gregory Johnson and his firm Shreve, Lamb & Harmon.
I thought these before and after pictures were intended to help us understand the past and the present of our city, not as an open forum for haters of urban change. These renewals and urban developments had reasons. Some of them were not well thought, some of them were. There are many mistakes, and many great ideas in the history of urban development in our city. Why not instead of saying “Quel désastre!” every time we see one of these before and after pictures, we try to think how to make our city a better place, how to use the ideas from the past and the present to make a better future.
There was one of these pictures in which the “after” view was clearly better than the “before” view. No comments were posted on it. I guess it is easier for us to bash everything than to admire the good things and make constructive criticism.
There have been many comments about positive changes (recently, about St-Denis views). One I’d not is burying the horrible Hydro pylons. I think this particular horror has to do with the construction of the Bonaventure expressay, though, can’t see where else it could be on St-Urbain, which has remained properly urbanised iin the most part.
Don’t forget that some things we think of horrors can get better with time, as our tastes and understanding develop, and as development fills in and “repairs” the bits around. While I just recently bashed Émilie-Gamelin as a park, it is a lot better than the parking lot that was there before. The Quartier international repaired brilliantly the freeway cut, and made the walk from old montreal to the downtown core much more pleasant. I’ve even grown to like the Banque nationale building in Place d’Armes now that I know more about the events that led to its being built (basically to try to save Old Montreal against decline as the “new” downtown with its fancy office towers was being built). And I absolutely love Place Ville-Marie, and the Aldred building, which wouldn’t exist if we had had the “foresight” to prevent urban development.
That said, I don’t think any amount of time or education will make me like the Palais de justice :)
I’m not opposed to urban development. Émilie-Gamelin, despite its many problems (in terms of architecture, and the inevitable social-interaction issues between street people, office workers, students, festival-goers… was a huge improvement over that awful parking lot, and has become an interesting venue for shows and events.
Indeed, Quartier international was a generally positive example of urban development.
Up closer to where I live, I’ll be interested in how the new housing, park and social centre on the site just north of the railway bicycle path (a site between Rosemont, St-Hubert and the railway line between La Petite patrie works out. That might lend some new life to the southern end of Plaza St-Hubert.
Thanks, I like reading your comments :)
Tristou, I really like the Banque Nationale building. It rounds out the sense of gravity created by the other imposing buildings on Place d’Armes.
Now the Bank of Montreal building, on the other hand, is horrible. It was built around the same time as the BN one but it is frumpy and provincial. It also replaced a gorgeous post office.