Unity, phase 3 - 15 étages

[Gilbert]

Ce projet devait initialement avoir 20 étages, mais a été réduit à 14 étages étant donné le secteur protégé de l'immeuble Unity, le Ministère de la culture n'a pas autorisé de dérogation qui permette une hauteur supérieure à la hauteur de l'immeuble Unity.

[Malek]

C'est vrai. C'est souvent ce beaucoup de gens oublient; la hauteur ne garanties pas la densitee si la partie du site occupee est faible, la densite n'est pas necessairement tres grande, meme avec un tour tres haute. C'est pour ca que les buildings avec des gros 'setbacks' (qui servent souvent a rien), c'est de la perte de densite. Paris, Londres sont tres dense mais pas tres en hauteur. Faut pas oublier qu'un edifice qui prendrait juste la moitie de la facade et la moitie de la profondeur d'un terrain devrait construire 4 fois la hauteur d'un building qui prendrait toute la superficie, pour atteindre la meme densitee...

C'est aussi vrai que les européens jouissent d'unités d'habitations de très petite taille, des boites à chaussures. La densité n'est pas toujours signe de bonne qualité de vie.

[MartinMtl]

En visitant le site d'Atelier Big City, je suis tombé sur ces rendus. Aucune info disponible. Quelqu'un peut identifier où ça pourrait se trouver?

[FFJ-MTL]

I just opened the site, and this tower would be in Toronto.

However, I found another render of the 1037 rue Bleury,



And on the site, it is written that the 1037 rue Bleury is a "projet en cours".

[MtlMan]

C'est aussi vrai que les européens jouissent d'unités d'habitations de très petite taille, des boites à chaussures. La densité n'est pas toujours signe de bonne qualité de vie.

Excellente observation!

[Cataclaw]

Avoir beaucoup d'espace n'est pas toujours signe de bonne qualité de vie non plus.

[Habsfan]

Avoir beaucoup d'espace n'est pas toujours signe de bonne qualité de vie non plus.

I'm gonna have to disagree with you on that one. There's no way you can convince me that a 495 sq foot condo is better than a 1500 sq foot condo!?!?

[BiloMtl]

I'm gonna have to disagree with you on that one. There's no way you can convince me that a 495 sq foot condo is better than a 1500 sq foot condo!?!?

C'est sur Habsfan mais dit toi bien que la qualité de vie c'est relatif à chacun. Moi je sais très bien que ma qualité de vie serait mieux dans une unité de 500 pied carrés au centre-ville qu'un de 1 500 pieds carrés à Terrebonne mettons.

Dans un monde idéal j'aurais un penthouse au Altoria mais là c'est la qualité de mon porte-monnaie qui fait défaut...

[Cataclaw]

I'm gonna have to disagree with you on that one. There's no way you can convince me that a 495 sq foot condo is better than a 1500 sq foot condo!?!?

Correlation does not imply causation.

Yes it is possible to be happier with more square footage of living space, but it also possible to obtain an increase in square footage and show no change in quality of life/happiness.

Studies have been done to demonstrate this. This "rule" also applies with money. Up to a certain point, increased money (or increased square footage) will increase your happiness and quality of life. But when a certain "threshold" is met, additional money or additional living space no longer gives you increased happiness.

It's like if you're living a 30-bedroom mansion and you upgrade to a 31-bedroom mansion. Odds are, you won't gain any significant happiness. If you have 100 million dollars or 101 million dollars, odds are, you won't gain any extra happiness.

The threshold varies from person to person and it's a totally subjective thing. For some people, once you get up to 3000 sq. feet, your "relative maximum happiness" pertaining to living space is attained, and any additional space will yield exponentially diminishing returns.

For some people, that "happiness threshold" is at 500 sq. feet. It might be hard for you to imagine how someone could be totally satisfied and content with such a living space if your own threshold is much higher (say 3000 sq feet or more) but as someone with such a threshold, i can assure you that it's true.

For me, i'd rather have a small living space that is intimate rather than a vast living space. If i had unlimited money, i'd rather have a penthouse condo with < 1000 sq feet on the 40th floor of a Midtown Manhattan high rise rather than a 5000 sq foot mansion where i could practically get lost in.

[jesseps]

Avoir beaucoup d'espace n'est pas toujours signe de bonne qualité de vie non plus.

Correlation does not imply causation.

Yes it is possible to be happier with more square footage of living space, but it also possible to obtain an increase in square footage and show no change in quality of life/happiness.

Studies have been done to demonstrate this. This "rule" also applies with money. Up to a certain point, increased money (or increased square footage) will increase your happiness and quality of life. But when a certain "threshold" is met, additional money or additional living space no longer gives you increased happiness.

It's like if you're living a 30-bedroom mansion and you upgrade to a 31-bedroom mansion. Odds are, you won't gain any significant happiness. If you have 100 million dollars or 101 million dollars, odds are, you won't gain any extra happiness.

The threshold varies from person to person and it's a totally subjective thing. For some people, once you get up to 3000 sq. feet, your "relative maximum happiness" pertaining to living space is attained, and any additional space will yield exponentially diminishing returns.

For some people, that "happiness threshold" is at 500 sq. feet. It might be hard for you to imagine how someone could be totally satisfied and content with such a living space if your own threshold is much higher (say 3000 sq feet or more) but as someone with such a threshold, i can assure you that it's true.

For me, i'd rather have a small living space that is intimate rather than a vast living space. If i had unlimited money, i'd rather have a penthouse condo with < 1000 sq feet on the 40th floor of a Midtown Manhattan high rise rather than a 5000 sq foot mansion where i could practically get lost in.

It all depends on the person.

I was living in a 1800 sq.ft condo in Old Montreal. I felt cramped in that thing and it was on two floors mind you. Its been now over a year, that I am back in the west island. Now living in almost a 3000 sq.ft home and I find it pretty big. I spend most of my time in my bedroom, which is probably half the size of a decent size condo in the city. Only other part of the house I am in part of the time, is my atelier in the basement.

I would love to live in a bigger house, but I'd for sure get lost and never use like 98% of the space. I'd have to have parties every weekend for it to be worth while.

Back to big vs. small. For me... ideal size would be... 2400 sq.ft. Nice size bedroom, bathroom, kitchen, living room and extra space for like my atelier.

[Habsfan]

For some people, that "happiness threshold" is at 500 sq. feet. It might be hard for you to imagine how someone could be totally satisfied and content with such a living space if your own threshold is much higher (say 3000 sq feet or more) but as someone with such a threshold, i can assure you that it's true.

ok, good post. You've convinced me that for "some" people 500 sq feet is enough, but I can't understand it. Where do you put your in-laws when they come over from out of town. IN a 500 sq foot space you can't ever have guests over, cause you've got no room to accomodate them!

Anyways, I guess it isn't important! I just can't imagine people living like rats in a 490 sq foot shoebox and loving it!