Even though the Bloomberg piece I shared said the opposite of what you’re saying… the Chamber of Commerce also wanted this as a project to bring people back and create “buzz”
All it did was mock us globally and what tourists came to Montreal to look at a giant grey ring lol.
I’m all for public art, but it’s been the main driver to bring people back for the past two years,along with these stupid “event passports” and whatnot… It’s not working.
It is funny though, seeing so many people defend public art and artworks compared to my solution, which was tried in many major cities globally and actually helped solved the issue. It does not mean everyone works in a cubicle or no more public art, but I’m not surprised people on here will misconstrue my words and come up with lame excuses.
We need bigger thinkers in this city and province, but sadly, big thinkers are not rewarded in our society. This might trigger some of you, but sometimes the hard truth is needed.
Of course the Chamber of commerce told that it was to bring people back, but necesserily only workers… You want to creat a buzz and that’s what happened. If you think people are mocking us ? Show us example, yes people even here laugh of it, but who care, talk about it and make visible. That’s what create a buzz mean. Of course there will be detractors, but hey, it bring attention and maybe it brought people that wanted to take a look at it, even if they thought it was just a huge c**k ring in the middle of downtown.
If it brought worker on the area to come see it fine. But of course the primary focus of that ring was not : let put that on so it will fill up the PVM.
And if you have so great solutions, let share them, start something, be part of the solution, don’t spit on what is proposed. Yes the government should do more, but only complaining about that the other groups can do, that are not public governement, is counter productive, since they have a very limited reach and some elements are not depending on them. Also, they have limited actions that they can do.
Nothing is perfect, but at least, it show that they try to do something, and it’s a thousand time then just doing nothing or complaining that the small actions that they do it useless.
My business is HQ’d in downtown, hundreds are employed there with six figure salaries, we retrofitted our spaces, added a lot of amenities and it has helped bring people back downtown.
I’ve lobbied the government of Quebec, the city of Montreal and other stakeholders to chop chop on real solutions, yet it’s either mediocre solutions or they stay silent. I showed them examples of other cities that have enacted policies and programs to rejuvenate downtowns and businesses with great success, they shrug me off. I’ve been at it for more than two years and it’s the same b.s every time.
I’m honestly heavily considering moving my HQ to the U.S with the Canadian HQ in Toronto, because there is a lack of care in this city and province, where they focus on other issues that are redundant. Toronto is a mess too, don’t get me wrong, but it’s a global city. I chose to stay here cause I love it here, but business is business and love cannot blind you. A lot of people are feeling the same way and a domino effect is on the brink of happening.
If stakeholders actually listened to what myself and others have lobbied for and reduced red tape, I can guarantee you the city centre would be in a much better shape than it is today. But no, we keep aiming for mediocre and low energy solutions, it’s unacceptable.
My guy (or gal), I agree with the vast majority of your points and the approach you are pushing for, however, the way you’re coming across is slightly aggressive and condescending. Just something to watch out for because you clearly have a unique insight and it’s a refreshing one to see.
Gal, but also not condescending, just really frustrating seeing whats going on here. I do wish more citizens would voice these opinions or further push the government to get cracking. Now is the perfect time for heavy investment to keep us afloat during the recession too.
I’ve done my part, others in the business community have tried, but there’s only so much we can do you know? I’ve been patient for years now and it’s been affecting our numbers and if this continues, the BoD and upper management will have no choice but to move and no longer contribute. I don’t want it to get to that point, but that’s just how the business world is sadly.
That’s good for you and your business, but it is very very clear, on a global scale, that a mass return to the office most of the week is not the future. Future proofing our city center means no longer bending over backwards to cater to this market, because it is boom and bust. Except now it’s only bust. People will go to the office a few days a week if it’s easy to get to and the work environment is sociable and satisfying, but productivity wise most people perform fine from home.
So that begs the question again, why should we break our heads to encourage that style of city center to return?
Actually, productivity is higher at the office, since people at home tend to slack off…
We retrofitted our office, added more spaces and amenities. I require people to be in 4x a week and outside Friday’s, our occupancy rate hovers at around 90%!
I’m even more generous and reimburse everyone on transport fees, so essentially, they come downtown for “free”
This was another policy I lobbied for, where the government can provide the tax credits to employees for transit or we get reimbursed for costs, because doing this for 300+ employees costs a lot of money, on top of taxes, expenses, etc…
Again, you’re not “bending over backwards” for a “bust” market, making downtown an economic zone and reducing red tape will actually help accelerate the return to office and businesses, while encouraging more projects to go up. Again, they did this in the United States, mainly Southern cities and you’re seeing why so many people are moving there or expanding businesses. Even with office occupancy rates being below 60%, they are still attracting businesses and buildings are still going up.
Meanwhile over here, nothing… just more red-tape, lack of true effort and the government killing the business community with a certain bill, labour shortage and not investing in real solutions.
J’ai relis la conversation, et je crois que personne ici n’a fait cette opposition. On est un forum d’urbanisme, pas spécifiquement de ta sphère professionnelle (que nous ne connaissons pas, et je crois que c’est compréhensiblement par choix). Les perspectives vont être plus variées. Les gens jugent l’anneau pour ce qu’il est: de l’art urbain. Ça veut dire: un geste artistique, un geste de bonification du domaine public, un point d’intérêt.
Cette appréciation n’est pas invalidée parce que l’anneau n’a pas loué des pieds carrés de bureaux. Ça veut juste dire que l’anneau ne loue pas de pieds carrés de bureaux. Si la CCM pense que ce sera la résultante, on peut bien critiquer la vision de la CCM. Les gens ici défendent un autre regard sur l’œuvre, qui est quand même fondamental au rôle de l’art public.
Je vais me répéter ici, mais ce n’est absolument pas une façon d’aborder un débat. Exposer des idées ne fâchent personne (ou personne de raisonnable en tout cas). Ça le fait juste quand c’est l’intention derrière les écrits. Et c’est pourquoi certains ont un problème avec le ton. Quand on se fait dire “je veux vous fâcher et je vais vous fâcher”, il y en a qui vont se fâcher.
Incidemment, c’est une raison pourquoi beaucoup de gens sont méfiants des gros crédits d’impôts. Un éternel marathon vers la fiscalité la plus faible possible, par des compagnies visiblement très agiles à déménager. On voit constamment ces industries quitter une juridiction pour une autre lorsque les conditions sont plus avantageuses chez le voisin, jusqu’à un point de non-soutenabilité des mesures. C’est une course sans fin vers l’intenable pour maintenir certaines industries.
Je ne dis pas que tu as tord (ce n’est pas mon domaine anyway). Je fais juste souligner une critique qui s’est souvent avérée bien réelle. Si on veut vendre l’idée de subventionner des entreprises, il faut être capable de vendre un plan soutenable où ces entreprises contribueront de manière durable sans des subventions infinies. Je serais curieux de savoir des solutions.
C’est un choix d’entreprise d’exiger 80% de présentiel cependant. Pour plusieurs, ça n’a aucun intérêt et ils vont libérer des espaces.
Ça me semble nullement soutenable. Pourquoi des entreprises voudraient louer des bureaux fondamentalement inutiles? Je saisis complètement l’argument d’attirer plus d’entreprises qui vont participer à la demande, pas celui d’encourager la construction d’édifices sous-utilités.
Exactement. J’ajouterais qu’une entreprise qui s’établie quelque part seulement en fonction de la fiscalité est foncièrement une entreprise qui ne vise que le profit à court terme et donc je ne vois pas pourquoi on voudrait vraiment se fendre en quatre pour ces entreprises qui ne contribuent au final que très peu à la société qui les accueille. Évidemment, c’est très rare que ce soit le seul critère.
Pour ce cas-ci seulement, je parle beaucoup avec des touristes dans le cadre de mon travail et c’est une installation qui semblait être appréciée puisqu’elle revenait souvent dans les discussions, elle et le Vieux. D’ailleurs, elle a permis d’animer l’esplanade en dehors des heures de travail, même à 23h il y avait du monde qui se prenait en photo devant, l’été!
Pour l’anecdote, quelques jours après son installation, j’ai recommandé à une famille de touristes d’y jeter un coup d’oeil et qu’il y avait également des restos en dessous. Le lendemain matin, je me promenais dans le centre-ville avant mon shift et j’ai croisé la famille, qui était dans un taxi en direction de l’aéroport. Ils ont tellement aimé l’anneau et leur expérience, qu’ils ont arrêté leur taxi au milieu de Saint-Antoine, ils sont débarqués et sont venus me voir pour me remercier de leur avoir fait la suggestion car ils avaient adorés.
J’ai des membres de ma famille qui sont des entrepreneurs et je peut t’assurer qu’ils sont engagés dans leur communauté, c’est bon pour les affaires après tout. Donc je veux dire que je ne considère pas le fait de vouloir faire de l’argent comme un vice, mais bien comme quelque chose de normal.
Je pense néanmoins que ce n’est pas vraiment controversé de dire que dans les dernières 30-40 années, on voit qu’il y a un certain court-termisme qui s’est installé au sein de plusieurs firmes (dû a des actionnaires militants entre autre) qui jadis avaient des vision d’investissement à long terme et qui nécessairement prenait en compte leurs impact sur leur milieu au sérieux (en tant que bon citoyen corporatif), et c’est regrettable que ce genre de philosophie corporative s’effrite.
Et si on est pour donner des aides financières à des entreprises, il me semble qu’il faudrait le faire en tenant compte des impacts que ça peut avoir dans le milieu de l’entreprise en question.
Most companies, especially in the highly coveted tech sector, would disagree with you pretty much completely. Almost all software related companies I know are on a 2 day a week hybrid system. Having to hover over your employees to make sure they perform is a sign that there’s a problem. I have no idea which sector you are in but I’m not sure why there couldn’t just be periodic performance reviews to go over what an employee has accomplished over X amount of time…
But, if you’re retaining employees with this 4 day a week arrangement, your office must be a suitable environment for them, which is your reality. Now back to the global reality: no amount of trying to replicate “red states” business strategies is going to change the fact that many industries now like people working from home, and many people like to work from home. The office is a social space now, not just a work space. The system of before is not gonna come back
Why do we want this if it isn’t sustainable long term? Other than just to build for buildings sake. Businesses should be free to open and retain office spaces in this area, even encouraged to make their offices a place of social gathering and leverage that. But the city shouldn’t be trying to encourage this at all costs, given that this is not a long term solution to making ville-marie dynamic.
Real solutions to what problem? The problem of people working from home? Sorry but who cares. Build residential and institutional uses in the core and we won’t have to worry about that. As for the “bill”, theres a thread to discuss that elsewhere on the forum, but blaming that for the lack of people leasing downtown office space after the pandemic is probably a bit of a reach
Tell me you don’t know the business world without telling me you don’t know the business world.
But to break it down by your points
Productivity with my business, which is multi-facet, including finance, tech, A.I, brokers, etc… is higher when in person. Our biggest deals and meetings are in person, people get most stuff done at the office. I’m flexible, but we get results and that’s why my business is worth BILLIONS now.
Economic zones ARE long term lol… Every program like this has been in place for decades! It’s not just a 2-5 year thing and that’s it. It has helped attract businesses in depressed areas and will help fill office space that has been vacated by other companies, which will lead to more vacancy, which will lead to more pressure to build or renovate… Not rocket science.
2A. Special economic zones in the U.S helped me expand there rapidly and in a depressed area. I got a 30% tax credit to renovate a whole block, office, hired hundreds of people with ABOVE market salaries and it’s mainly at the office…
Not a reach, because there’s something called attracting talent from elsewhere. Ever since the pandemic and that bill, it’s been harder to do that, they are intertwined, period. The business community knows this, it has halted their expansion plans (or full out cancelled it) on top of bending over backwards for remote work, which affects productivity and our bottom line.
I know we all have opinions, but there are certain things where people in the field know more than most people. Sorry if this comes off harsh or rude, but it’s hard truths and in the business world, you cannot sugar coat stuff or else you’ll be eaten alive.
It does come off as extremely patronizing, but I’m an adult so I think I’ll survive lmao. But, you being in whatever field you’re in or however much your company is worth doesn’t make you the sole expert or decision maker of what the future of our city center should be. I think heading in this direction, prioritizing business concentration in one area and encouraging a return to the office, is not the future. Many many people, including many businesses that are going mostly remote, do agree with that. Many also do not. It has nothing to do with you knowing more than others, because this is as much an urbanism issue as it is a business one.
The city center should be a draw for locals, and a landmark for the region on its entertainment and cultural and institutional merits, and not a place people have to go to for “work”. Because when something like COVID happens, or the economy shits itself as it does once a decade, our city center becomes a shadow of its former self. That is what I mean by not long term. That’s my piece and I’m sticking to it
PHOTO MARTIN TREMBLAY, ARCHIVES LA PRESSE Ottawa et Montréal (photo) ont toutes deux enregistré leurs taux d’inoccupation les plus élevés de tous les temps au centre-ville, à 13,2 % et 16,5 %, respectivement.
(Toronto) Le taux d’inoccupation des bureaux au Canada a atteint un sommet record au premier trimestre de l’année, selon la société de services immobiliers CBRE.
Publié à 12h53 LA PRESSE CANADIENNE
Le taux global d’inoccupation des bureaux du pays s’élevait à 17,7 %, celui des bureaux dans les centres-villes atteignant 18,4 % pendant que celui des bureaux dans les banlieues s’établissait à 16,8 %.
Le taux d’inoccupation des bureaux du centre-ville de Toronto a atteint 15,3 %, le niveau le plus élevé que le plus grand marché de bureaux du Canada ait connu depuis 1995.
Le taux d’inoccupation des bureaux du centre-ville de Vancouver est passé à 10,4 %, le plus élevé depuis 2004.
Ottawa et Montréal ont toutes deux enregistré leurs taux d’inoccupation les plus élevés de tous les temps au centre-ville, à 13,2 % et 16,5 %, respectivement.
CBRE a attribué la plupart des augmentations de taux d’inoccupation aux entreprises technologiques, qui ajustent la taille de leurs activités et repensent leurs espaces.
Selon les chiffres de CBRE, seul Montréal a enregistré une diminution substantielle de ses espaces de bureaux vacants. Edmonton, Toronto et Ottawa ont tous atteint des records d’inoccupation dans leur région métropolitaine.
