To comment scroll to the bottom of the entry. Your e-mail address and URL are optional fields.
The France pavilion, now the Montreal Casino
Last week while having dinner with an acquaintance our conversation turned to the withdrawal of the plan to move the casino form its site on Île Notre Dame to the pointe. This person likes to spoil pleasant evenings with statements that are controversial.
Sensing the mood a little too amicable, he lobs his first attack; “It’s too bad that they cancelled the Casino plan for the pointe. I think that it was a good idea”
His half-baked attempt to start a row has made me think a little more about the project. While the idea of moving the Casino to the pointe is currently shelved, it is worth discussing further the idea that the Casino needs to relocate. Here are a few of my ideas on why the whole idea should have never left the drawing boards.
The Quebec pavilion from expo 67
First, the images presented of the project were very ambiguous and unprofessional. A sketchy aerial perspective of the proposed building gave no scale or context of the building. How would the building look from Wellington St? Would the building be visible from the river? How would the Casino relate to the peel basin? How would traffic flow to and from the Casino be dealt with? As a designer I felt that the idea was too underdeveloped to be presented to the public. Maybe they were just testing the waters before committing.
Second, Casinos are never good for neighborhoods. Anyone who has been to Atlantic City understands this. Atlantic City is a mass of gaudy casinos on the beach, with ruined Victorian houses and Edwardian apartment buildings just inland of the casinos. Does anyone want this for the pointe? Of course, the cirque will do better, right? Refer to point one.
The Quebec pavilion before (and possibly after) the Casino
Last, but most important, what would become of the buildings on Île Notre Dame? Two of the remaining artifacts from the 1967 world exposition have been used to house the casino, the French pavilion and the Quebec pavilion. If the Casino moves, then what would happen to these buildings? An empty building is always in danger of demolition, and it would be a shame to lose these two landmarks. The casino has benefited from the use of these historic buildings for many years, and have been given free reign with modifications of the two buildings. To many, the casino destroyed much of the heritage value of the Quebec pavilion by painting the building white and changing the glazing to gold mirror. The Casino should therefore be responsible for finding an appropriate use for these buildings if the casino ever moves.
How could the Casino not foresee the problems with the old French and Quebec pavilions that Loto-Quebec is using as excuses for moving to the pointe? Should we allow our government agencies to use (or misuse) our heritage, then discard it for short term gains? Given Loto-Quebec’s inability to foresee its current problems, how can we be sure that a new Casino would not be obsolete in another dozen years?
Because Loto-Quebec is a government agency, we should expect more detailed and careful studies of new development projects.
[email this story] Posted by Michael Bailey on 04/16 at 11:25 PM
-
Le pavillon du Québec n’existe déjà plus du tout. Son architecture et sa technologie ont été complètement gommées lors de sa modification. Je vous suggère de comparer votre photo avec une prise aujourd’hui. Ce bâtiment est beaucoup plus haut, plus large et ses intérieurs d’origine ont été complètement refaits; niveaux de plancher, escalier, etc. Il ent enfin complètement opaque, ce qui est contraire à sa conception originale. Il serait impossible aujourd’hui de le remettre à son état d’origine sans le reconstruire au complet; il faudrait faire une “copie”.
Le sort du pavillon de la France est à peu près le même. Ces deux bâtiments étaient des construction temporaires. Ils devaient être démontés après l’expo67. Ils n’ont pas été conçus pour durer et encore moins pour être utilisés par un usager aussi exigeant que le casino. Le pavillon de la France subit actuellement un tel stress dû à l’usage intensif 24hsur24 qu’il est en train de s’autodétruire de l’intérieur!!! C’est le temps et l’usage sinon les hommes qui détruira ces pavillons. Quoi qu’on fasse quoi qu’on dise, il y aura un nouveau Casino à Montréal. Peut-être sera-t-il plus simple d’en construire un tout neuf dans les jardins adjacents de l’ile Notre-Dame…?
Posted by on 04/17 at 09:48 AM
-
Thank you for your comment, David. While the buildings were to be temporary, the Casino should have considered the load on the structures when the major refitting was done (and when the heritage was lost). By not reenigineering the buildings when the Casino was built only says to me that the Casino had ALWAYS planned to move, and that the Casino did not care at all about the buildings, or their history. Either that or the corporation was too short-sighted in their planning of the original Casino.
Either way, the Casino should be held accountable. Wherever the Casino is moved, Loto-Quebec needs to be kept on a tight leash, and whatever is proposed should be studied thoughly before allowing any move.
Your idea for a new site on the islands may be interesting. Ideally a site that would not eliminate anemites for the public at Parc Jean-Drapeau.
Posted by on 04/17 at 08:20 PM
-
The French pavilion was given an extensive interior refit at a hefty price, designed by Arcop among others (IIRC) in the early ‘90s. I don’t doubt M. Comtois’ statement that the building has long outlived its planned life, nor that it is currently being subject to wear and tear, but I don’t believe that the renovations were intended to be temporary.
For that matter, I would think that the pavilion as originally built would have to be as structurally sound as any permanent building (if only for safety’s sake), but would be temporary in its use of cheaper and less durable roofing, cladding, and finishings. If Loto-Quebec is failing to maintain the original structure or its subsequent renovations, that’s another matter. My understanding of the Peel Basin proposal was that Loto-Quebec would move its headquarters from the glass cube on Sherbrooke Street to the current Casino buildings on the river, so they seem to have had some faith in the longevity of the complex.
Loto-Quebec will not be kept on a short leash so long as it, along with the SAQ and Hydro, are gleefully used as cash cows and sources of patronage appointments. It would certainly become less transparent and less accountable if “partnered” with private finance, as Charest seems to think appropriate for any and all public entities.
Posted by Dan Casey on 04/19 at 10:06 AM
-
Thanks Dan for your comments. I did not know that loto Quebec was going to reuse the buildings, which is a good thing.
I guess that we arrive at the question should the government be involved in an industry such as gambling at all?
After all, should government money be spent on perks for big-time gamblers that we want to attract to the Casino? Where do we draw the line? Free plane tickets? Tickets to the grand prix? Free hotel rooms?
The private casinos can escalate the perks to where we cannot (and should not) go, such as drugs and prostitutes.
We cannot let the Casino have carte blanche with planning new buildings. The excuse that the Casino needs to move to keep pace with other Casinos arrives at the problems mentioned above. As a govenment agency, we have the right and obligation to excercise strict control over where new Casinos are built, and how they are planned.
Personnaly, I am not against a new Casino if it is necessary, for safety reasons, and for preserving the existing buildings. However, the Casino plans will need to be very carefully designed, all impacts considered, and the public consulted.
The best result would be a beautiful building that respects Montreal’s character, and has the class that some european Casinos have.
Posted by on 04/19 at 01:23 PM
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.
<< Back to main
