ville-marie Place Banque Nationale - 40 étages

[mont royal]

2 minutes ago, kool maudit said:

Counterpoint: It doesn't matter. 

Montreal is out of the race so far as tall buildings go; the city's height limit means that we cannot even build a 250m tower, and that is hardly tall from a world or even continental perspective. On the other hand, so what? Is Stockholm unpleasant due to its lack of such? Hamburg? Do these cities lack for interesting buildings?

It is entirely possible to build a landmark building, a memorable and spectacular building, at 139m. It's possible at 90m, at 65m.

Even if the building was 230m, it would not vault Montreal to anything close to North American leadership in the field of skyscrapers. Buildings in places like Atlanta and Seattle would still dwarf it, to say nothing of Toronto or Chicago.

The most important thing is to gradually build out this part of town, to use it to connect the urban fabrics of downtown, the Old Port, and Griffintown in such a way that it ultimately results in central Montreal feeling nearly 30% larger, being nearly 30% larger in terms of most people's usage patterns.

The building doesn't need to be particularly tall for this. It just needs to be good.

Right on! Good attitude trumps altitude. Accept our uniqueness and make the best of it!

[vivreenrégion]

Oui, mais l'idée ici c'est qu'on parle de 139m pour 900,000-1,000,000 p². La tour Deloitte fait 135m sur 500,000 p². Imagine la tour Deloitte, mais 2x plus profonde, ou 2x plus large. La Place Telus fait environ 600,000 p² pour 136m. imagine quelque chose d'encore plus large de 33%.

[kool maudit]

36 minutes ago, kool maudit said:

city's height limit means that we cannot even build a 250m tower, and that is hardly tall from a world or even continental perspective. On the other hand, so what? Is Stockholm unpleasant due to its lack of such? Hamburg? Do these cities lack for interesting buildings?

It is entirely possible to build a landmark building, a memorable and spectacular building, at 139m. It's possible at 90m, at 65m.

Even if the building was 230m, it would not vault Montreal to anything close to North American leadership in the field of skyscrapers. Buildings in places like Atlanta and Seattle would still dwarf it, to say nothing of Toronto or Chicago.

The most important thing is to gradually build out this part of town, to use it to connect the urban fabrics of downtown, the Old Port, and Griffintown in such a way that it ultimately results in central Montreal feeling nearly 30% larger, being nearly 30% larger in terms of most people's usage patterns.

The building doesn't need to be particularly tall for this. It just needs to be good.

Another counterpoint still: we still have work to do.

Maybe the culture of the city will change one day so as to favour tall buildings. This would be similar to what happened in Chicago in the 1960s and 70s, when the city jumped from a 500-550 foot plateau skyline to a 1000-foot plus reality. Interesting side note here, Montreal's tallest buildings were taller than those of Chicago in the late 1960s.

Before this happens, our goal should be to see the construction of well-designed, conservatively proportioned skyscrapers whose urban attributes gradually give this building type a better image among ordinary Montrealers. Luckily, we still have a reasonable degree of latitude for architects and developers to play with; just as Chicago's Art Deco skyscraper landmarks are stunning despite falling universally shy of the 200m mark, so too do our high-rise architects have every ability to maximise their expertise in the form within the current parameters.

Tour de la Bourse or the IBM building are not little sub-scrapers like, say, the Potsdamer Platz buildings in Berlin. They are powerful presences that mightily boost their respective streetscapes, and their lessons can be applied to larger buildings if and when politics permit.

In the meantime, it is very important that Montreal's new high-rises, whether 200m or 100m, are of a type that improve's this style of building's reputation.

It would take a 300m tower to really mark Montreal's return to the realm of skyscrapers anyway. It doesn't matter if this BN tower is 139m or 210m.

 

[peekay]

9 hours ago, newyorkontario said:

Actually this article says that [tallest since 1992]:

http://montrealgazette.com/business/national-bank-plans-tallest-building-montreals-downtown-has-seen-in-25-years

"The 36-storey building will be the tallest office tower built in Montreal’s downtown core since the 47-storey building at 1250 René-Lévesque went up in 1992, said Claude Breton, the bank’s vice-president of public affairs."

That was not a false statement.  All the fanfare with such an announcement (tallest since 1992) appears to have been over-hyped promotion.

I don't get it. Isn't it true?

Deloitte and Manulife are the only other office buildings I know of and they are both shorter. It was just you that simply misinterpreted that right? 

[vivreenrégion]

il y a 25 minutes, peekay a dit :

I don't get it. Isn't it true?

Deloitte and Manulife are the only other office buildings I know of and they are both shorter.

en 2030 ils pourraient utiliser la même phrase ''la plus haute tour en près de 40 ans''  si on veut repartir le compteur à 0 il faut construire plus haut que celle de 1992. On fait juste fabuler là, on espère tous une tour d'au moins 175m, on reste positif.

[peekay]

1 hour ago, vivreenrégion said:

en 2030 ils pourraient utiliser la même phrase ''la plus haute tour en près de 40 ans''  si on veut repartir le compteur à 0 il faut construire plus haut que celle de 1992. On fait juste fabuler là, on espère tous une tour d'au moins 175m, on reste positif.

Moi je suis toujours convaincu que la tour aura 200 metres. Un mix-use. Pourquoi la firme à fait des maquettes de 200 mètres? 

 

 

[KOOL]

il y a une heure, vivreenrégion a dit :

Oui, mais l'idée ici c'est qu'on parle de 139m pour 900,000-1,000,000 p². La tour Deloitte fait 135m sur 500,000 p². Imagine la tour Deloitte, mais 2x plus profonde, ou 2x plus large. 

Sachant que la tour Deloitte est déjà considérée comme une «Fatty» (au mieux une «Chubby»), la BN entrerait directement dans la catégorie de l'obésité morbide. J'espère me tromper car à 139M ça serait la pire déception de toutes ces dernières années... quelle que soit la qualité de son architecture. 

[santana99]

il y a 5 minutes, KOOL a dit :

Sachant que la tour Deloitte est déjà considérée comme une «Fatty» (au mieux une «Chubby»), la BN entrerait directement dans la catégorie de l'obésité morbide. J'espère me tromper car à 139M ça serait la pire déception de toutes ces dernières années... quelle que soit la qualité de son architecture. 

La tour BN à 139 M, arrêtez ça !  J'ose espérer que les dirigeants de la BN ont un peu plus d'ambition...

[Rusty]

C'est la folie furieuse ici .... cet anticipation est juste trop .. BN faite quelque chose

[MtlMan]

Il y a 11 heures, Philippe a dit :

Never trust wikipedia

Honnêtement et d'expérience, Wiki est généralement aussi fiable que n'importe quelle encyclopédie reconnue. Et il est arrivé à plus d'une reprise que des éléments de wikipedia étaient plus vrais que ceux mentionnés sur des sites de journaux reconnus.

Mais bon, on s'éloigne du sujet là...