BilMo

On 2021-12-19 at 3:23 AM, Enalung said:

I'm just going to throw an idea in here. Some of the more recent trains are able to run on battery power. How would you feel about having a REM which runs using a catenary along some of its length, but runs on battery where the catenary would be too much of an eyesore?

Are you thinking that this would be for the sections that are underground?

Wait till the crane becomes visible from Place Du Canada and Dorchester Square.

10 hours ago, Normand Hamel said:

We already know the effect that the Tour de la Bourse has on the 628 and for my part I find the association synergistic. But I'm especially looking forward to seeing the effect the VSLP will have on the 628.

I find that the 628 makes the TDLB look more robust from certain angles. It is a similar effect that the Altitude and TOM have on PVM.

15 hours ago, prav0008 said:

The Marriott is not an office tower but a hotel like this one and yet is connected underground. I can buy the slip road reason though. 

Are you referring to the Chateau Champlain? Isn't that part of a larger complex that includes an office tower?

17 hours ago, urbino said:

Very good photo.

I am one of those who deplore that the Avenue is not more visible because of everything that surrounds it. Curiously, while the building is very visible in this photo, it looks like we don't really see it, it merges into the landscape.

A characteristic of Manhattanization?

1 hour ago, crosbyshow said:

I prefer to wait to see the plans for the aerial portion before shouting for the complete cancellation of the project.

 

No one saw another sketch.

 

I would think if they believed a rendering of the aerial route complete with stations above RB and RL would convince people to support the project, they would have shown some.

Maybe they are holding out to do the tunnel.

1 hour ago, champdemars said:

This street is blocked very often by the events of the shows district... so it seems to me not too problematic to block it on R-L.

It's closed to automobiles during events, but pedestrians can still approach the area from the south side of RL. I am concerned that the transition from viaduct to tunnel might create a blockade at Jeanne-Mance that needs to be circumnavigated.

For me, the new alternative addresses the two single worst things about the RL viaduct. That would be the terminal station structure above RB and RL and the awkward pedestrian connection to Central  Station. But this might not be enough. I would still be concerned about the blocking of Jeanne-Mance.

1 hour ago, go_habs_go said:

Can the current basement structure support a 200m tower? I think it was originally planned for a 15-20 storey building. I wonder if a new build would have to completely scrap the existing base or simlpy reinforce it. @budgebandit?

Personally, I would like to see a 140-170 meter building on this site. I am thinking taller than the twins to the north, but not quite as tall as TDLB.

10 hours ago, geraldshaw said:

8 months since the announcement of REM B, we still have no professional renderings by the Caisse-Infra of the above ground look along R-L/| SherbrookeE. Just a tiny little inset box above as in "trace arien". And virtually all outside observers are against the above ground look, however it may look. Clearly the Caisse is in no hurry to show their ugly scar along R-L and Sherbrooke E to Montrealers. Now the politicians recognize REM-B enclaves are not popular and bad for votes. This project is dying by a thousand cuts. So let's ask the Caisse to withdraw it.

The whole project is going nowhere 

I don't see the RL viaduct as a good fit for Montreal on more than one level. I am actually surprised that it is taken as a serious proposal.

I would love to see a metro entrance here.

13 hours ago, Rocco said:

Blah, it would have been even more recessed and we would have had the full wall of the Dorchester. 

On the other hand, the Dorchester might have been designed differently.

23 hours ago, Wave Arts said:

What defines a beautiful skyline? Is it the number of high towers? The density of the towers? A mix of both with the environment?

 

These are some of the things that I think should be considered in a multi-dimensional skyline.

topography: water, hills, mountains

office and residential towers

bridges, communication towers, monuments

historical layering: representations from different eras

44 minutes ago, internationalx said:

Also, what does the PVM/R-B terminus look like? Presumably this is going to be an above ground station because the line is above ground. In front of Telus Tour? PVM? In the middle of R-L? Yikes. Gotta love that they haven't shown us renderings of that yet.

This is what I am waiting for. Won't there also need to be a stub (of the viaduct) that extends beyond the terminal so trains can switch tracks?

With that being said, I doubt that The REM B will see the light of day here, in the literal sense.

It will be interesting to see some conceptual drawings of the REM B downtown terminal.

20 minutes ago, Enalung said:

Nope, it's right behind the photograph. The road in the foreground is Jeanne Mance. The building in construction in the foreground is either the Courtyard Mariot or the AC Hotel by Marriott. The addition of these 2 buildings already changes that stretch of René-Lévesque quite a bit. The 500 René-Lévesque is no longer visible from that same viewpoint now.

Jeanne Mance is before the flag?

3 hours ago, Enalung said:

I remember seeing this picture on Facebook. I didn't repost it because it's so ridiculous as an image. Just look at the first road: there is a pillar in the middle. The two photos are not of the same stilt. Fast measurement, a 2-see intersection is about 15m. This means that in this photo, there would be a pillar

every 10m. The building on the left is the 500 René-Lévesque. Pictured is also a Canadian flag. This flag, it is located in front of the Guy-Favreau complex. It allows you to situated the photo quite accurately.

Saint-Urbain would be somewhere in the foreground?

43 minutes ago, Enalung said:

Ville-Marie, with the curve and the slope, it's been discredited for a long time.

I’m not sure if I read it correctly, but I understood it as being an aerial route above the Ville Marie footprint to the Convention Center.

A 250 meter tower in Montreal is probably more likely than the Rene Levesque viaduct.

6 hours ago, reecemartin said:

This station in Vancouver is not too imposing

 

 

I'm trying to envision this on Rene Levesque.

7 hours ago, reecemartin said:

Vancouver seems to have plenty 

That pic has a Griffintown vibe. I could imagine an aerial there.

On 2021-05-09 at 8:26 AM, KOOL said:

CIBC is superbly slender when it takes its East-West axis.

I always liked the slender proportions of CIBC. The 500 Place d'Armes tower is almost exactly the same width and depth  as CIBC.

Will anybody be talking about the REM above Rene Levesque a year from now?

1 hour ago, Miska said:

I did a quick photo montage... It gives an idea from the sky. It's all about the design of the structure that's there.

 

Nice overlay! 

Is the station wide enough to accommodate access from the sidewalks? Do you imagine sky bridges connecting into the surrounding buildings?