rufus96

In my opinion, and as much as I'm enjoying the current high rise boom, I'm relieved that none of the projects that are proposed or under construction will be the tallest in the city or breach the height limit. Montreal is still in the relative early days of its boom. $/square foot / rents are still low compared to other global cities and one of the results, generally speaking, is a lower quality of architecture (especially apparent in exterior finishes). We're in the midst of seeing it improve as we enter "phase 2" so-to-speak, with projects like Humaniti / Four Seasons etc. (moderately interesting form, decent execution of materiality) appearing to be much more audacious than their recent predecessors. VslP and Banque Nationale are perfectly decent but the appear to not really break the mold in any way other than their heights (final judgement reserved until construction is complete). I think what we don't want to do is over-saturate the skyline with Canvar-esque towers that will simultaneously cheapen the skyline and obstruct the "Big-5" towers that were legitimately conceived with architectural quality and ambition, generally lacking in today's global high-rise development. Perhaps in 10 years/a few building cycles, we'll be ready to introduce a proper new icon into the skyline, at which point I think the moment will be appropriate to reopen the debate over the height limit.

Il y a déja un fil pour ce projet:

Quick little edit - major cost savings for Canvar! 😏

This amorphous blob must be destroyed before it reproduces and spawns others.

C'est possible qu'ils voient l'élévation géodesique sur les dessins architecturaux (ce qui expliquerait comment l'hauteur pourrait atteindre plus de 200m par rapport au niveau de la mer) et non la hauteur absolue de l'immeuble.

Renderings can be great tools to illustrate ideas in architecture and urbanism and some are quite stunning - straight up art. The problem can be that the rendering technology has become so sophisticated that really good renderings are past the point of realism and present quasi-ideal depictions of projects/urban environments. This often leads to disappointment when the finished building/product is revealed. I personally would not be producing renders while still in conceptual design. 3D physical models can be a far more powerful tool and convey the architecture without presenting the finished product (they are often built out of a single material such as card or wood, so they don't lock in the building's materiality etc). That said, some municipal authorities ask for renderings or illustrations of a project (such as a view from sketchup/revit) at the planning stage, so there's a bit of a built in dilemma in that firms are often forced to produce them at an early stage in the overall design, before working drawings have been produced, before the project has been tendered and of course, before a project has undergone value engineering.

Fantastic lighting in these shots!

I remember passing the construction site with my then-girlfriend marveling at the tallest building built in Montreal since 1992. I also remember asking myself if Montreal would ever see another 40-floor building after the OCPM rejected the 1100 Mackay proposal by Panzini. How times have changed!

Chicago is a first rate city with some of the finest architecture and urbanism in North America, if not the world, in that it's almost the essential North American metropolis. Not many cities in the world are frequently referenced in schools of thought - "Chicago School" - in more than one discipline no less. It's difficult to judge Chicago on its violent crime rate/homicide rate, because these things are often cyclical. Montreal was once Canada's violent crime capital (circa Hell's Angels vs. Rockmachines) and look how far we've come. The situation may be more complicated in Chicago (I'm not particularly familiar with its nuances), but who is to say that it won't improve, just like it did for us? As has been well documented, Montreal has been bashed a lot for some of its shortcomings over the years. Perhaps it's a reflex to do the same now that we're hitting our stride, but it's kind of an ugly reflex. Montreal can learn a lot from Chicago's approach to its public realm, architecture and fine-grained urban density.

Don't love it. Don't hate it. Better than the original proposal.

I'm with @MartinMtl on this one. If the application for the building permit (which is a more advanced step in project development than the CCU) is asking for 202m (which is my understanding of the document), and the building permit is granted, then they're locked in and confirmed at 202m.

More than likely, the windows will have a reflective coating typical of residential high rise glazing for privacy, heat gain etc., so while the glass colour is technically "clear," the tower will reflect its surroundings.

Well... The Junction is pretty cool... But Verdun is 10x better.

The brain drain has slowed but it's still a thing - particularly in the world of finance, where opportunities and salaries are just typically greater elsewhere. It is what it is. Not sure I'd use Vancouver as a good example of where people are heading though (lower salaries, higher costs, even fewer HQ jobs). Negative interprovincial migration has slowed somewhat over the past 5 years which is certainly a good sign. Montreal has to continue to build on its startup culture to create the next batch of large companies. It's not as if the big 5 banks (and the cluster of associated finance firms) are going to move their top jobs back, so the only way to go is grow our own companies and create those types of jobs/opportunities from within. The economy is slowly shifting to a different, more flexible model of entrepreneurship. Montreal seems to have understood this earlier than some of its peer cities and has gotten in on the relative ground floor, which bodes well. The article reads as though Montreal is some type of middling city. The word "medium sized" was used to describe it. In my opinion, this isn't the correct mindset. A big part of this game is branding and reputation. Cities smaller than us openly brand themselves as "global" and Montreal needs to be doing everything it can to reach a larger audience with the message that we're not just a good city to visit and watch a concert in, we're not just a good city to live affordably in, we're a good city to start and conduct business in. If not, we won't be taken seriously. I was walking in Downtown Toronto last summer and Tourisme Montréal was running its campaign "Montreal, Never Grow Up,' by spray painting giant poutines on the ground etc. I get that tourism dollars are big dollars, and this is just an anecdotal example, but you have to ask yourself - what do other people see us as? Little Europe? Las Vegas North? I'm kind of tired of that S**t the same way I'm tired of encountering drunk college students from Boston on a Saturday night. You want to play in the big leagues, you need to have a big league mentality.

For every non-data based survey that puts Montreal in the global top 10, there's one that puts us out of the top 50. Always nice to see us get some positive press, but not sure this a study worth gushing over.

C'est pas aussi simple que d'avoir vendu autant d'unités pour financer le projet. Il faut aussi que la ville fournisse les permis requises (permis de démolition, permis de construction etc.) avant que le promoteur puisse déclencher la construction.

It should be pointed out that wage growth in Quebec has been the highest in Canada over the last year by quite a wide margin and has been trending above the Canadian average for some years. We certainly still have work to do, but I'm not under the impression that we're falling further behind - I think we're in the midst of making up ground.

Les villes américaines se classent plus haut à cause de la puissance relative du dollar américain, comparé a le notre.

I'm inclined to agree with @_mtler_ on this one. This is one of the most exciting building projects in Montreal right now, so I'm not sure why they would want to leave the thread, especially seeing how announcements/possible renders for this project are most likely forthcoming. The forum has other threads dedicated to discussing Mount Royal / the height limit for the exact reason that _mtler_ is pointing out.

I'm all for one Canadiens logo... but 3 (and who knows maybe more)? Seems like a way to market a brand and sell a few extra units to me.

I'm kind of disappointed... it was evident that this property had become neglected and I was hoping it would be torn down to make way for added height/density in a prime downtown location. Investment is good news, but upgraded glazing and a very basic refresh aren't going to do a whole lot to improve the street level experience, really just the user experience. Anyway, it's nice that it will improve, but I had higher hopes.

Montreal starts at roughly 10m above sea level at its low point and, as has been widely discussed, attains 232.5m in elevation at its highest point. The height of the building is not measured from an average grade (relating to the site or otherwise) but rather from the height of its lowest public entrance. This site is roughly 30m above sea level. (Consulted Google Earth for spot elevations)

Sauf qu'une hauteur 220 mètres au-dessus du niveau de la mer ne s'agit pas d'une tour de 220 mètres.... Si c'était le cas, Calgary aurait la tour la plus haute au Canada avec quelques 1600m+

We've heard from a well informed source (Marc90) that the tower will most likely be 197m tall. It seems they're marketing the tower as the highest residential building in Montreal, which is technically correct as it sits on much higher ground than Victoria sur le Parc (200m). There seems to be some editorial confusion however, in stating that it will be the tallest residential tower in Montreal, which appears not to be the case.

With a few rare exceptions, I think the majority of buildings in the above mentioned skylines are extremely tacky and won't stand the test of time. A skyline needs "filler" buildings (for lack of a better term) to compliment the few landmarks. When every tower is trying to be a world landmark, you wind up with a mess. The street level experience is awful. Curiously enough, even with all the oil money, they're not built to the highest of standards either. Ironic that the Dubai Marina Torch has gone up in flames twice, presumably because there are combustible elements in the tower's cladding. I would have liked a more ambitious Square Phillips proposal, but please no towers shaped like flowers or stars or sail boats or flames. Much of the architectural height of these towers is unusable space tacked on for extra height with no functional purpose, so totally inappropriate for a North American market where demand for space drives highrise construction.