internationalx

You know one is going to be 180m? I'm thinking more like 200m and 60m. There is a reason the ICAO building is built the way it is and take a look at the now very old phase II of Cite International....

No doubt about it: one tower is going to be shorter as the north portion of the lot has the expressway beneath it.

Wow. A transformational tower - for the skyline, the neighborhood, architecturally. This will have the impact the BNC wanted.

Spinning their wheels: the debate makes no sense. Limiting the height to 232.5 metres (200m) is quite literally only symbolic at this point.

For the most part I agree. But, I can see the Sheraton Centre and the EVO demolished at some point given the value of the land and the existing zoning allowances on each respective site - plus their exceptional locations. Hotels are easy to redevelop too: you close at 5PM one day and demo can start the next morning. With an office building, it's much more difficult with varied lease terms (i.e.: harder to empty).

Honestly, the top of this tower is going to make-it or break-it for me. So far it's just kinda "meh." It's really a very post-Modern design but heavy on the Deco.

Hopefully the ground-level facade of its neighbor gets restored properly.

Exactly. Given a lot or block with 250m limit, it's unlikely you will get a building that high or all buildings built that high. But give a lot or block a 120m limit, and it's very likely going to be built that high. Economics has a lot to do with it of course, but some limits are simply too low. The Roccabella block and the CCE block are both zoned for 200m and not a single tower will reach that height.

It's really all Montreal needs in terms of one super-tall, iconic tower in the middle of the downtown core. There has been some pushback / controversy with Coderre's announcement that height limits need to be re-thought so as to increase density, but the reality is, - and we all know it - the masterplan is going to be due for a revamp sooner rather than later: with all the surface lots are quickly disappearing and all the lots with the max density being built on, it's going to be an economic development problem - regardless of whether or not the 200 metre cap is changed or not.

Whatever one may think of the design and "preservation" of these old row houses, I love that they are returning to their original vocation: upscale housing.

Lots of luxury towers have no outdoor space/ balconies. In Montreal: Port Royal, Westmount Square.

It would surprise me if a tech company - like Google - comes in and leases like 80% of this building in one shot: it's a winner with the big floor plates, the outdoor terraces, and the location, location, location.

Agreed 100%. There needs to be a major land-use/master plan developed for this mega block with the city taking the lead. I'd love to see Belmont street turned into a huge glass hall for Gare Central - from Mansfield to R-B. Think Calatrava. Obviously some of the existing buildings are worthy of demo/re-development over time so a plan that really encompasses the next several decades of needs to considered. And yes, this is probably the one area where a 250 meter height limit could be adopted; it's so central in the skyline that one iconic building would not interfere with Mount Royal's dominance in the cityscape.

Pretty good result. The Duke Investment building could have been more creatively incorporated (with a setback atop perhaps) but I'm just glad its preserved.

They are not playing around.

Solstice and 1000 de la Montagne will beef it up a little but won't add much variety in height from that angle. Only hope is the YWCA lot gets 200 metres or close to it.

I count 3 more floors to go then she's topped-out.

The play on black and white of this complex is really starting to pop.

Exactly. While concerns about over-shadowing the church are valid, telling a developer they can't build to the height already given by-right per the urban plan is very problematic. Namely, their concern about blocking views of the river form Mount Royal; that boat left the port when they zoned the lot 120+/200m. The integration with the church can be done very elegantly. It's not the first time we see small churches and skyscrapers co-exist: Citicorp (NYC) or Place de la Cathedrale and I'm certain there are more.

I think we are all seeing the flaws of the current urban plan and zoning limits. And as has been discussed, view of Mount Royal would have been better preserved with view corridors; a row of towers that match the height of the mountain still block the mountain. That said, I agree that Montreal is a mix of European and North American unlike any other place, for sure. But let's not forget that skyscrapers are also part of Montreal's DNA: by the early 1960's Montreal had a skyline when most cities anywhere - outside NYC and Chicago - didn't!

Also, why not have built right-up to the lot line against the Dorchester Apts?

If they're asking for a derogation re: height, why go with the standard 120m?

Love it. It's going to be a monolithic beast. 😍

And at 215m, it still technically meets the limit of the height of Mount Royal; would be hard for the OPCM to debate that point. Recall that the St. Jacques street mega block (BNC HQ and VslP) used to have a 215m limit that seemingly, mysteriously was cut to 200m.

NO. It's a tear-down.