Well, they want to stick a hotel/condo thingy right up through it. Montreal has turned it’s back on it’s railroad history in a totally uninspiring way. Sooner or later all the good stuff will be obscured by crap and someone will say remember when…..
Not only that, they want to wipe out the whole Viger Square that was designed by Daudelin, one of Quebec’s most prominent sculptors. It has a bad reputation because of the homeless squatting the area but that is a social problem and bulldozing the square isn’t going to solve it. I walked through the square last week, and honestly it’s a beauty. If only they would turn the water back on in the fountain and clean up the place.. It’s a travesty the city hasn’t cleaned up the place in the last 15 years! There is so much ragweed in there, they should slap themselves a big fat fine.
Things change. What’s wrong with “remember when”? What’s wrong with hotel/condos? Wasn’t this a hotel when it was built? What’s wrong with it being a hotel now? I’d really like to understand your (and most people here) mentality. What’s wrong exactly with an investment that will most probably preserve the building for many years?
Why change the thing into some kind of bizarre rendition of what it is? If preserving the building is significant, why not just preserve it as is? Montreal ‘s uniqueness has long been this type of building. At the rate we are going we are going to be a parody of ourselves.
Lol :). One of the reasons why they promote this kind of investment is to get enough money to preserve the building. Neath, what is your proposal? To spend a lot of money maintaining the building while not getting anything back from it?
This was built to be a hotel. I still don’t see why being a hotel now is a “bizarre rendition” of what it “is,” but maybe I’m too slow for such deep reasoning.
Maybe I’m missing something here. Is this building going to look different from outside after they start using it again as a hotel? If so I understand and respect your opinion, thought I still think this type of change is not a bad thing.
Au moins, quand ce sera un hôtel, ils vont s’arranger pour sortir les robineux…
I’m with you Adolfo, this was a built as a hotel and now it’s reverting back to its original vocation. The portable A/C’s will be yoinked out of the windows and the building will be returned to its original splendour. This is a bad thing? Would we prefer that it be turned into an office building/banquet hall such as Hotel Windsor? How about a little upscale shopping like Les Cours Mont-Royal? Sheesh!
As far as the Daudelin is concerned: that should stay, it’s the rest of that 70’s era, disasterous public space that should go. The concrete bomb shelters, the ‘One side oppressing the other’ blob, the fountain that ignores what other, successful fountains look like.. all should be replaced. Square Victoria-it, Place Riopelle-it, Square Dalhousie-it.. TREE-IT!
As for the homeless the answer is simple: provide them with homes.
Thanks Todd. I totally agree with you.
Given the wonderful built heritage of the area, a rejuvenated Viger Square could easily become one of the most elegant parks in the city. It isn’t as though Montreal doesn’t know how to play hardball with developers (partially responsible for the city’s anemic rate of outside investment); as I understand it, the renovation of the square would fall upon the developer, as well as the responsibility to build a given amount of social housing in an off-site location.
I agree with you, Todd, in all respects. The brutalist monstrosity that passes for a park should be done away
Maintenance costs are an old line used by politicians and developers. They keep telling us that the place will fall apart if they don’t develop it. And they often allow places to fall in disrepair just to make development attractive. Every city in the world uses the same old lines. Any idea how many exemptions a place like this can receive if politicians think it’s worth preserving as is? It’s a joke.
What do you propose it be preserved as, Neath? Government offices? Brilliant.
“70’s era disastrous public space.” Amen to that. Although in fact — shhhh! — these spaces are actually from the early 80s. Actually, it’s only the parks that are dreadful; I very much like the art in these spaces — there’s the ever-so-practical guess what, it’s art, too! fountain by Peter Gnass at the eastern edge, then Force by Claude Théberge in the middle park that screams 1980s. And the Daudelin, sigh. The whole park is a sculpture, called Agora, which includes the wall of water and the fountain called Mastodo and the sad elevated planters. So what do you do? As a public square, it sucks, and not just because of the homeless hanging around. But as a work of art, it’s certainly ambitious. When the whole space was transformed into a stage and beer garden type thing for the Gay Games, it worked marvelously indeed — it was transformed from a horrid post-apocalyptic Logan’s Run mess to an incredibly cool and interesting space indeed.
So what do you do? I don’t believe that art is sacred — especially art that also serves a function, such as being a public space. Luckily, I’m a very optimistic fellow, and I’ve also been impressed with some of the ways that Montreal has fixed past mistakes, such as the Quartier International and, in this case, the eastern edge of east park, where they flattened the separation between the street and the park and planted trees, for example. So perhaps they’ll get to repairing these other sad parks. Not so sure the same can be said for other disasters though — my favourite 70’s-what-the-f*ck-is-that is the all brick park at the corner of Ontario and Montcalm. I mean, huh?
Neath, let’s assume that it doesn’t cost anything to preserve the place. There are still two options:
1) Your proposal (and according to you, the one that actually preserves the history of the place): Leaving the building abandoned and doing nothing with it.
2) That it works again as a hotel.
The advantages that we see in (2) is that the building becomes functional, it goes back to its *original* function (what better way to preserve history?) and it brings tourism (money) to the city. I still don’t see the advantages in (1).
I think the Fairmont hotels are a good example of good preservation of historic hotels.
This is probably soooo stupid I probably shouldn’t share, but I will anyway….heh.
Why not a railroad museum? Montreal was only headquarters for BOTH (or all?) national railways at one point in history. We have pretty much torn most of what was the most complex and magnificent rail town in the country down, so why not do something to commemorate that? Railroads are universal and such a place close to the Old Port would make money, trust me. But it is a stupid idea, of course.
Neath, now I understand your point. A museum would certainly commemorate the history of the place. People who are more familiar or attached to this history should respond to your comment. I still think a hotel means more money but that’s just my very greedy opinion :)
17 comments
Well, they want to stick a hotel/condo thingy right up through it. Montreal has turned it’s back on it’s railroad history in a totally uninspiring way. Sooner or later all the good stuff will be obscured by crap and someone will say remember when…..
Not only that, they want to wipe out the whole Viger Square that was designed by Daudelin, one of Quebec’s most prominent sculptors. It has a bad reputation because of the homeless squatting the area but that is a social problem and bulldozing the square isn’t going to solve it. I walked through the square last week, and honestly it’s a beauty. If only they would turn the water back on in the fountain and clean up the place.. It’s a travesty the city hasn’t cleaned up the place in the last 15 years! There is so much ragweed in there, they should slap themselves a big fat fine.
Things change. What’s wrong with “remember when”? What’s wrong with hotel/condos? Wasn’t this a hotel when it was built? What’s wrong with it being a hotel now? I’d really like to understand your (and most people here) mentality. What’s wrong exactly with an investment that will most probably preserve the building for many years?
Why change the thing into some kind of bizarre rendition of what it is? If preserving the building is significant, why not just preserve it as is? Montreal ‘s uniqueness has long been this type of building. At the rate we are going we are going to be a parody of ourselves.
Lol :). One of the reasons why they promote this kind of investment is to get enough money to preserve the building. Neath, what is your proposal? To spend a lot of money maintaining the building while not getting anything back from it?
This was built to be a hotel. I still don’t see why being a hotel now is a “bizarre rendition” of what it “is,” but maybe I’m too slow for such deep reasoning.
Maybe I’m missing something here. Is this building going to look different from outside after they start using it again as a hotel? If so I understand and respect your opinion, thought I still think this type of change is not a bad thing.
Au moins, quand ce sera un hôtel, ils vont s’arranger pour sortir les robineux…
I’m with you Adolfo, this was a built as a hotel and now it’s reverting back to its original vocation. The portable A/C’s will be yoinked out of the windows and the building will be returned to its original splendour. This is a bad thing? Would we prefer that it be turned into an office building/banquet hall such as Hotel Windsor? How about a little upscale shopping like Les Cours Mont-Royal? Sheesh!
As far as the Daudelin is concerned: that should stay, it’s the rest of that 70’s era, disasterous public space that should go. The concrete bomb shelters, the ‘One side oppressing the other’ blob, the fountain that ignores what other, successful fountains look like.. all should be replaced. Square Victoria-it, Place Riopelle-it, Square Dalhousie-it.. TREE-IT!
As for the homeless the answer is simple: provide them with homes.
Thanks Todd. I totally agree with you.
Given the wonderful built heritage of the area, a rejuvenated Viger Square could easily become one of the most elegant parks in the city. It isn’t as though Montreal doesn’t know how to play hardball with developers (partially responsible for the city’s anemic rate of outside investment); as I understand it, the renovation of the square would fall upon the developer, as well as the responsibility to build a given amount of social housing in an off-site location.
I agree with you, Todd, in all respects. The brutalist monstrosity that passes for a park should be done away
Maintenance costs are an old line used by politicians and developers. They keep telling us that the place will fall apart if they don’t develop it. And they often allow places to fall in disrepair just to make development attractive. Every city in the world uses the same old lines. Any idea how many exemptions a place like this can receive if politicians think it’s worth preserving as is? It’s a joke.
What do you propose it be preserved as, Neath? Government offices? Brilliant.
“70’s era disastrous public space.” Amen to that. Although in fact — shhhh! — these spaces are actually from the early 80s. Actually, it’s only the parks that are dreadful; I very much like the art in these spaces — there’s the ever-so-practical guess what, it’s art, too! fountain by Peter Gnass at the eastern edge, then Force by Claude Théberge in the middle park that screams 1980s. And the Daudelin, sigh. The whole park is a sculpture, called Agora, which includes the wall of water and the fountain called Mastodo and the sad elevated planters. So what do you do? As a public square, it sucks, and not just because of the homeless hanging around. But as a work of art, it’s certainly ambitious. When the whole space was transformed into a stage and beer garden type thing for the Gay Games, it worked marvelously indeed — it was transformed from a horrid post-apocalyptic Logan’s Run mess to an incredibly cool and interesting space indeed.
So what do you do? I don’t believe that art is sacred — especially art that also serves a function, such as being a public space. Luckily, I’m a very optimistic fellow, and I’ve also been impressed with some of the ways that Montreal has fixed past mistakes, such as the Quartier International and, in this case, the eastern edge of east park, where they flattened the separation between the street and the park and planted trees, for example. So perhaps they’ll get to repairing these other sad parks. Not so sure the same can be said for other disasters though — my favourite 70’s-what-the-f*ck-is-that is the all brick park at the corner of Ontario and Montcalm. I mean, huh?
Neath, let’s assume that it doesn’t cost anything to preserve the place. There are still two options:
1) Your proposal (and according to you, the one that actually preserves the history of the place): Leaving the building abandoned and doing nothing with it.
2) That it works again as a hotel.
The advantages that we see in (2) is that the building becomes functional, it goes back to its *original* function (what better way to preserve history?) and it brings tourism (money) to the city. I still don’t see the advantages in (1).
I think the Fairmont hotels are a good example of good preservation of historic hotels.
Il faut de plus noter que l’intérieur de l’édifice ne possède plus aucun élément d’origine comme le démontre ces photos : http://www.vigerdmc.com/documents/fr/3_13.pdf
This is probably soooo stupid I probably shouldn’t share, but I will anyway….heh.
Why not a railroad museum? Montreal was only headquarters for BOTH (or all?) national railways at one point in history. We have pretty much torn most of what was the most complex and magnificent rail town in the country down, so why not do something to commemorate that? Railroads are universal and such a place close to the Old Port would make money, trust me. But it is a stupid idea, of course.
Neath, now I understand your point. A museum would certainly commemorate the history of the place. People who are more familiar or attached to this history should respond to your comment. I still think a hotel means more money but that’s just my very greedy opinion :)