ville-marie Le George - 45 étages

[newyorkontario]

5 hours ago, Flo said:

Would be very upsetting should the promoters are denied the proposed 50 floors... a real bummer, knowing economy is booming. Allow me a brief digression on this thread though.

I think that you "hit the nail on the head."  The message from the city fathers in Montreal to developers (including private money) seems to be: take your business to (put your project in) Toronto with their twenty-five (25) proposed skyscrapers (1128-650 feet/344-198 metres) where the commercial vacancy is less than 5% if you want to build significant economy stimulating projects.  We don't need your stimulus here in Montreal.

See diagram with proposed Toronto buildings- all of which are taller than 1000 de la Gauchetiere:

https://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?searchID=78444401

Just what is the message that Montreal is sending to Cadillac Fairview (who applied for a height increase for 750 Peel)?  Veuillez lire l'article:

http://affaires.lapresse.ca/economie/immobilier/201506/25/01-4880722-cadillac-fairview-veut-construire-plus-haut.php

According to CF:  "[They are] planning a huge $ 2 billion project around the Bell Center, [and they are] asking the City to increase the allowable height limits from 120 to 210 meters, failing which its investment capacity at short term will be "seriously affected."

CF campaigned for the 210 meter zone to be extended even further south to Notre-Dame Street, and to the east, where the group wanted to erect a series of other skyscrapers.

[CF] stressed the need to go even further. According to [CF], raising the 210 meter limit on such a small area could hamper CF projects over the next few years, hence the importance of expanding it.

"Of course, [this] will seriously affect Cadillac Fairview's ability to respond to short-term investment opportunities," says [CF].

"If the 210-meter zone is already there, Cadillac Fairview will have the capacity to accommodate a major tenant who could come to his door tomorrow morning and have the tools to meet the needs of those future tenants. "

Will maintaining the current 120-meter limit lead CF to "defer investment"? asked the OCPM President. "To your question, the answer is yes, it will seriously affect the capabilities of Cadillac Fairview," said [CF].

CF's plan includes at least six skyscrapers around the Bell Center, total investments of $ 2 billion over 15 years. The Tour des Canadiens and the Deloitte Tower are already under construction, while Phase 2 of the Tour des Canadiens is under preparation. The group also plans two buildings in Peel Street - offices and dwellings - the highest of which could reach 180 meters.

For comparison, Place Ville Marie is 188 meters, while the 1000 De La Gauchetière, the highest skyscraper in the metropolis, is 205 meters.

Sometimes vertical planning makes more sense than horizontal.  Sometimes it's time to get with the times.  Sometimes arcane rules restrict advancement.

Montreal shouldn't lose out (staying in dinosaur mode) because other cities are more willing to accomodate big development.  Up until the mid 80's, Montreal was bigger than Toronto- now the tables are turned.  Montreal isn't shrinking though, Toronto grew up faster and passed Ville Marie.

Modifié 6 septembre 2017 par newyorkontario
brackets, italics

[rufus96]

The reasons why Toronto surpassed Montreal in size and global importance are well-documented, including on this forum. 

Toronto didn't surpass Montreal because it was/is willing to build taller skyscrapers.

Been walking around downtown Toronto lately? The place is a mess. I am currently working in Toronto (did not move for political/economic reasons) and can personally attest to situation on the ground, especially in the Southcore. Numerous 200+ meter skyscrapers with absolutely zero ground level interaction. Suburbs in the sky. Wind tunnels. Buildings that are a copy/paste function of one another.

I am an architect and an urbanist and a skyscraper enthusiast, but height for the sake of height (read profit) is ruining Toronto. While I would be happy to see taller skyscrapers in Montreal, I value a more methodical approach to development. 

Let Toronto play the short game and continue to stress its already overburdened system in its goal for global recognition. It may lead to its downfall.

[ferraro]

il y a 3 minutes, rufus96 a dit :

The reasons why Toronto surpassed Montreal in size and global importance are well-documented, including on this forum. 

Toronto didn't surpass Montreal because it was/is willing to build taller skyscrapers.

Been walking around downtown Toronto lately? The place is a mess. I am currently working in Toronto (did not move for political/economic reasons) and can personally attest to situation on the ground, especially in the Southcore. Numerous 200+ meter skyscrapers with absolutely zero ground level interaction. Suburbs in the sky. Wind tunnels. Buildings that are a copy/paste function of one another.

I am an architect and an urbanist and a skyscraper enthusiast, but height for the sake of height (read profit) is ruining Toronto. While I would be happy to see taller skyscrapers in Montreal, I value a more methodical approach to development. 

Let Toronto play the short game and continue to stress its already overburdened system in its goal for global recognition. It may lead to its downfall.

Les gens qui font une fixation sur la hauteur des immeubles, lisez et relisez ce commentaire. Éloquent !

[Rusty]

Interesting what you are saying rufus96 ... Never believed Toronto is on it's way down ?

[theodore123abc]

8 minutes ago, rufus96 said:

The reasons why Toronto surpassed Montreal in size and global importance are well-documented, including on this forum. 

Toronto didn't surpass Montreal because it was/is willing to build taller skyscrapers.

Been walking around downtown Toronto lately? The place is a mess. I am currently working in Toronto (did not move for political/economic reasons) and can personally attest to situation on the ground, especially in the Southcore. Numerous 200+ meter skyscrapers with absolutely zero ground level interaction. Suburbs in the sky. Wind tunnels. Buildings that are a copy/paste function of one another.

I am an architect and an urbanist and a skyscraper enthusiast, but height for the sake of height (read profit) is ruining Toronto. While I would be happy to see taller skyscrapers in Montreal, I value a more methodical approach to development. 

Let Toronto play the short game and continue to stress its already overburdened system in its goal for global recognition. It may lead to its downfall.

From every time I visit Toronto for business or friends I find the same things. However having a few nice tall towers or clusters in between good street density and urban planing can be really nice for both pictures and life. 

[rufus96]

I feel that Toronto is living it's moment right now, but I also believe in ebbs and flows and I don't think Toronto is well equipped for the future.

It's currently attracting 120,000 people/year to its metropolitan region, but hasn't substantially improved its public transportation. This just amounts to more cars on the road in what is already a very congested city. The YUS subway extension slated to open in December and the Eglinton Crosstown coming online in a few years are all fine and good, but they don't address the situation in the core city, I would argue they make it worse by bringing more suburban commuters to the core where transportation options are limited. 

Combined with the ridiculous cost of living and I think you have a recipe for a slowdown. This growth is not sustainable.

[MartinMtl]

il y a 42 minutes, newyorkontario a dit :

I think that you "hit the nail on the head."  The message from the city fathers in Montreal to developers (including private money) seems to be: take your business to (put your project in) Toronto with their twenty-five (25) proposed skyscrapers (1128-650 feet/344-198 metres) where the commercial vacancy is less than 5% if you want to build significant economy stimulating projects.  We don't need your stimulus here in Montreal.

See diagram with proposed Toronto buildings- all of which are taller than 1000 de la Gauchetiere:

https://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?searchID=78444401

Just what is the message that Montreal is sending to Cadillac Fairview (who applied for a height increase for 750 Peel)?  Veuillez lire l'article:

http://affaires.lapresse.ca/economie/immobilier/201506/25/01-4880722-cadillac-fairview-veut-construire-plus-haut.php

According to CF:  "[They are] planning a huge $ 2 billion project around the Bell Center, [and they are] asking the City to increase the allowable height limits from 120 to 210 meters, failing which its investment capacity at short term will be "seriously affected."

CF campaigned for the 210 meter zone to be extended even further south to Notre-Dame Street, and to the east, where the group wanted to erect a series of other skyscrapers.

[CF] stressed the need to go even further. According to [CF], raising the 210 meter limit on such a small area could hamper CF projects over the next few years, hence the importance of expanding it.

"Of course, [this] will seriously affect Cadillac Fairview's ability to respond to short-term investment opportunities," says [CF].

"If the 210-meter zone is already there, Cadillac Fairview will have the capacity to accommodate a major tenant who could come to his door tomorrow morning and have the tools to meet the needs of those future tenants. "

Will maintaining the current 120-meter limit lead CF to "defer investment"? asked the OCPM President. "To your question, the answer is yes, it will seriously affect the capabilities of Cadillac Fairview," said [CF].

CF's plan includes at least six skyscrapers around the Bell Center, total investments of $ 2 billion over 15 years. The Tour des Canadiens and the Deloitte Tower are already under construction, while Phase 2 of the Tour des Canadiens is under preparation. The group also plans two buildings in Peel Street - offices and dwellings - the highest of which could reach 180 meters.

For comparison, Place Ville Marie is 188 meters, while the 1000 De La Gauchetière, the highest skyscraper in the metropolis, is 205 meters.

Sometimes vertical planning makes more sense than horizontal.  Sometimes it's time to get with the times.  Sometimes arcane rules restrict advancement.

Montreal shouldn't lose out (staying in dinosaur mode) because other cities are more willing to accomodate big development.  Up until the mid 80's, Montreal was bigger than Toronto- now the tables are turned.  Montreal isn't shrinking though, Toronto grew up faster and passed Ville Marie.

En savoir plus  

I have a hard time understanding the point of your rant. CF actually got what it wanted (a height increase); they could actually have build higher, but decided that the market was not there for a 200 meters tower. A guy over at SSP, who works for CF, said so just a few days ago. There are still plenty of land to build 200 meters and no one does because it's not financially profitable to do so in this city. 200 meters condo towers are more expensive than two 100 meters towers and less profitable, unless you can sell the condos at a price that the Montreal market can not sustain. It has nothing to do with Montreal politics. 

 

Here is the exact quote of this CF employe: (...) CF built to the height the market dictated, not the max allowable. The Montreal market is seeing very strong absorption right now but it was starting from a high vacancy rate so until the rate dips below 10 in total or around 8 in the financial core it's unlikely another tower will break ground. The good thing is the vacancy rate is dropping right now so those market conditions may be here sooner rather than later.(...) Here's the source. 

[3dimensions]

Je ne pense pas qu'il s'agisse d'une fixation pour les hauteurs, je crois plutôt que c'est l'interdit qui suscite autant de fascination pour les tours de plus de 230 mêtres. Parfois les lois peuvent étouffer au point de vouloir les transgresser. Et il y a une marge entre construire que de hautes tours à la Dubaï  ou rêver qu'il y en ait une ou deux qui dépassent d'une tête nos cinq grandes. Ça rendrait le skyline juste plus intéressant dans sa diversité. En fait, la beauté de la ligne tient dans la variété des hauteurs, c pourquoi la règle du 200 mètres risque à la longue de devenir très monotone. 

Modifié 6 septembre 2017 par 3dimensions

[Gabmtl]

il y a 42 minutes, rufus96 a dit :

The reasons why Toronto surpassed Montreal in size and global importance are well-documented, including on this forum. 

Toronto didn't surpass Montreal because it was/is willing to build taller skyscrapers.

Been walking around downtown Toronto lately? The place is a mess. I am currently working in Toronto (did not move for political/economic reasons) and can personally attest to situation on the ground, especially in the Southcore. Numerous 200+ meter skyscrapers with absolutely zero ground level interaction. Suburbs in the sky. Wind tunnels. Buildings that are a copy/paste function of one another.

I am an architect and an urbanist and a skyscraper enthusiast, but height for the sake of height (read profit) is ruining Toronto. While I would be happy to see taller skyscrapers in Montreal, I value a more methodical approach to development. 

Let Toronto play the short game and continue to stress its already overburdened system in its goal for global recognition. It may lead to its downfall.

Amen! 

[internationalx]

I think we need to drop the Toronto (or Edmonton for that matter) comparisons with respect to the issue of height.  Furthermore, we should also drop the issue some of us have with the 210M max Montreal has - i.e.: no being allowed to go higher than Mount Royal; 50 stories can be fit within that limit and that is tall!  Imagine dozens of 45-50 story buildings: they is a pretty amazing skyline.  I mean, until recently, Manhattan was mostly a 50-story skyline city.  Only now are supertalls invading the cityscape. 

Where I do believe height restrictions WILL impact future economic development in Montreal has to do with limited number of lots where a developer can build tall: the zoning map is designed so that the cluster of CBD towers matches the curve of Mount Royal - more of less.  That is a quaint idea but totally unrealistic as the decades move on.  We all know that there are lots zoned for 210M next to lots zoned for 65M or 85M and that south of Le 1000, for example, where the elevation is so much lower, you can't build more that 120M.  CF was right to ask for a height increase for the lots at 700 Peel…. 

Modifié 6 septembre 2017 par internationalx