rufus96

Une annonce s'en vient dans les 20 prochaines minutes - le site sera donné à UQAM.

There is always preparation to be done before a crane arrives, even if there is no excavation. Crane rentals cost tens of thousands of dollars per day. Why would one just show up if it has nothing to do? My office is nearby, I can see them preparing the podium for new construction above it.

There's a couple that I know of that are on the drawing board that are on hold. Can't really say more than that, but suffice it to say, they're not being rushed onto market. I do think they'll get around to it.

There are some Broccolini projects that are on hold too. The residential market is currently ice cold. CF cares about... money. I don't think there's much local bias at play here.

I wouldn't be surprised if NB turned out to be slightly below 200m (195-196). I think from a skyscraper geek standpoint, it would still be a win if one of them broke the symbolic 200m even if the other one didn't. Realistically, there's a whole bunch of reasons why a tower approved at 200m would terminate +/- 2m above or below the mark. Heights of elements change slightly as the detailed design is refined and coordinated during construction.

I suppose we'll see when google earth updates its 3d imagery, but I wonder if this one isn't a bit taller than 200m - it looks considerably taller than Tour de la Bourse from many angles. It's not inconceivable that the developer reached an agreement with the city on the down-low to get to 202-203m to accommodate necessary rooftop penthouse height or something functional. I suppose we'd have to see the drawings to know for sure.

They've started pouring concrete on this one - very much full steam ahead.

Le code permet une pourcentage d'ouvertures/de fenestration selon la distance entre les deux immeubles ou la distance entre l'immeuble et la ligne du lot. La pourcentage augmente avec la distance. Généralement, la pourcentage augmente aussi quand l'immeuble est protégé par les gicleurs. What you have to remember in this case is that the Peterson's windows are recessed from the undulating balconies - so the distance between these buildings is 1.2-1.5m greater than this picture suggests, which will have a small impact. Also, if you look at the building on the right, its wall facing the Peterson has very very very few openings, acting similar to a blank wall. Full disclosure - I didn't work on this building, or the Dorchester, so I'm not familiar with its details, but the Peterson's developer may very well have paid to protect some of the fenestration with shutters or rated glass. Last thing to keep in mind is that a decent portion of the facade will be spandrel glass which typically IS protected because the wall composition behind it is a typical stud wall that can easily be fire rated. What it comes down to is that Dorchester's developer probably could have gone with a very limited amount of openings but decided it didn't make sense to have very few windows on such a large facade. Think about it - you can't have units there receiving no natural light, so from a space planning perspective, now that you can't have units, you can efficiently put most of your services that need to stack vertically on that facade (stairs, elevators, garbage room etc.) since you don't need the natural light. That frees up the other 3 exposures for units. Hope that makes sense!

The blind wall exists for building code purposes as the two buildings are very close together. If there were windows on each, fire could, in theory, propagate from one building to another as your typical residential window is not fire rated whereas the wall is (you can get fire rated glass or fire shutters but: $$$ that most developers are not going for).

From a well placed source - a deal has been struck between the developers (there are 2 on this project) as to how to proceed with construction financing. This one should be going up soon.

We can sleep easy tonight. Doesn't matter how we win, just that we win.

Contrast RL to Bay St. which, while not exactly a mecca for pedestrian activity or interest, manages to retain some sense of intimacy and scale at 4 lanes while obviously serving as the premier corporate artery in the country, even if it may not have been conceived as such. Sometimes less is more. The obvious criticism of Bay St. however, is that the new city is layered on the old city à la Boston or Pittsburgh. While I personally find this more visually interesting than RL, it came at the cost of many, many heritage-worthy Toronto buildings.

Very sad. Rest easy Jasonzed.

I think, unless told specifically what a building's height is, most people perceive skyscrapers the same way: tall. Really not much of a difference between a 200m and a 250m or even a 300m tower. This can be evidenced anecdotally when residents protest 'giant 22-storey towers' in their area (context aside). Generally, you're either for it or against it, but most people remain ignorant to what the zoning actually stipulates and what height actually is. Floor count is the most common barometer for building height, but as we've seen a 50 storey office tower will almost always be taller than a 60 storey residential tower. In the context of this debate, the mountain puts the building height into some perspective because it can be measured against a fixed (figuratively in Montrealers' collective memory and literally) object, but realistically, the reality on the ground would be largely unchanged by scaling up. The common arguments against tall buildings - wind tunneling and shadowing - wouldn't change all that much. If a proposal is badly out of context, say a tower in Houston next to some single family homes, 50 floors vs. 60 floors really doesn't make a difference.

I personally think this is one of the steps forward for Canada if it wants to progress as the modern and progressive country it markets itself to be.