BilMo

14 hours ago, 3dimensions said:

I have dream. I dreamed of three numbers.

250, 275 and 320

I thought I'd play them in the lottery when I realized I was in the middle of a municipal election campaign.

And the slogan of one of the two candidates was:

Code-air. Sky is the limit

🧗 ♀️

In the late 80's, there was a proposal for a 268-meter tower in Hartford. It was called the Cutter Financial Center. I think it was mainly office but with residential on the top 15 floors. It was cancelled along with several other proposals in around 1989.

I did imagine this tower (or one with similar proportions) on the site of 1000 de la Gauchetière.

268 meter tower

3 hours ago, FrancSoisD said:

That, plus the fact this granite beauty is quite wide in looks to its height. (Let's see if @Rocco ends up calling it a "fatty", LOL! 😜)

I do like the proportions of 500 Place D'Armes. The tower's width and depth is almost exactly the same as the CIBC (rotated 90 degrees).

On 2021-04-03 at 7:46 PM, mtlrdp said:

Unfortunately the building is in the wrong location (old Montreal)

 

To me, part of the appeal is the setting. It wouldn't be the same if it was sandwiched in with a bunch of other towers.

On 2021-04-03 at 7:47 PM, FrancSoisD said:

I confess to having this impression, especially seen from the east of the Pd'A, confirmed last night after passing on N-D! 😃

More info:

- black granite envelope of Lake St. John

- its height is 432 feet / 131.7 m

Source (Cultural Heritage of Qc).

I don't believe the building is 432 feet. It looks closer to 400 feet.

14 hours ago, Doctor D said:

Peel metro station?

In That concept, Griffintown would be the Rem A/B transfer station. Rem B then continues and intersects with the Orange line at Bonaventure.

In the drawing, I just extended it to the Green line at Peel.

The concept I'm showing below is a variation to what Internist is describing.

Rem B stays underground as it intersects with Rem A in Griffintown. It then continues to Peel Street with a station that connects to the western end of the Bonaventure metro station.

42 minutes ago, dlesko said:

It would be disappointing not to see the highest one being done during construction.

Especially since this already happened once on this exact site.

I am trying to imagine what a terminus station at Robert Bourassa would look like. I am assuming there would have to be some sort of lobby. Would this structure tie into the buildings on each side of the street? Are the sidewalks wide enough for stairs escalators and elevators or would you enter through adjacent buildings? What happens to the plaza in front of the Telus Tower?

Not that I think this is going to happen, but I am curious to see what others are visualizing.

The image above illustrates that a lot has to do with the setting. Put the same thing on Rene Lévesque and it means something totally different. Perhaps this would look better on the Griffintown viaduct.

Could they insert glass panels into the false windows?

In my opinion, an aerial structure would fit better in neighborhoods that have an industrial vibe.

11 hours ago, SameGuy said:

I can't wait to see how they come up with solutions to the crazy engineering challenges of an aerial structure on top of the RL bridge and Central Station complex directly underneath it, but going underground would be too difficult — which leads me to believe they won't even put the station at PVM/Central, but stop short of it... making it even less of an interchange station.

I

That's probably why they are calling the station "Robert Bourassa". I believe if the station was between the QE and PVM, they would have called it "Central Station".

2 hours ago, SameGuy said:

I’ve said before the façade of the Queen E is nothing remarkable so if that station ended up being fully connected and integrated to the PVM Esplanade I don’t think that’s the fin du monde.

I agree about the Queen E. I also like the idea of integrating the station into the PVM esplanade.  But would it be ok for Rene Levesque to be a virtual tunnel at this point?

1 hour ago, Spiter_01 said:

Back to making an elevated REM more palatable I really hope they look at reducing the number of support columns. I think reducing by 1/3 or half the number of columns would go much further than just prettier ones. Ideally we get both. 

I would be more concerned with the stations. Has there been any renderings showing a station covering RL at PVM?

9 hours ago, champdemars said:

As for me it's not so bad.

How would this look with a station at RB and RL?

2 hours ago, champdemars said:

I also understand that the REM A and B remain separate in terms of operation, so at the Central Station, is there room to manage 2 high-frequency metro lines like this?

 

 

That is my main concern with this alignment.

1 hour ago, Enalung said:

I'm just going to pretend you didn't just suggest that. They just demolished the elevated section of Bonaventure between Wellington and Notre-Dame. The reasons why this idea is never going to fly should be obvious.

In most situations I prefer underground alignments. With that being said, I can see the distinction between an eight lane slightly above grade expressway that is insurmountable and a skytrain that is set 40 feet in the air.

45 minutes ago, SameGuy said:

 Now you’re proposing it rises above the A-line, crosses over all the CN tracks and then plummets underground somehow on the Bonaventure park or on Robert-Bourassa between William and Wellington? It’ll need cogs.

 

In that particular concept, it would make the transition near the base of McGill. 

22 hours ago, BilMo said:

Could one of the tracks under Central Station be used for this?

20 hours ago, Enalung said:

You'll need to be more precise with what you have in mind. Keep in mind that there are buildings on both sides.  

 

I was thinking about one of the rail tracks under Central Station/ Place Bonaventure as access for material.

Alternatively, what if the REM B was actually a branch of REM A? The REM B would branch off to the old port just after the Griffintown station.

17 hours ago, Enalung said:

It would be a lot less profound than a lot of other stations around the globe. Don't forget that when they enter Bonaventure, the rails are about the height of the 3rd floor. This means that they are not that deep under René-Lévesque. The complexity of this location is more the result of the fact that the site is already surrounded by skyscrapers. We're going to have to find a place to drill an access well to get the materials and get the debris out. 

Could one of the tracks under Central Station be used for this?

I think an elevated REM above RL would be less than ideal. Rene Levesque (as wide as it is) is not really that wide. A station would cover a good portion of the street.

If it must be a sky train, I would rather see it in an airier setting, such as along the waterfront and then tapping into the Bonaventure viaduct near the Griffintown station. I am saying this without looking in depth at the idea, though.

1 hour ago, Rusty said:

They have the same base ... that's why... If you look at the rendering you'll see

Would this be considered one building?

On 11/27/2019 at 8:59 PM, Windex said:

You will see 6 new rounds from here: BNC, VSLP, 455 RL Phase 2, Maestria 1 & 2 and SP. We should be able to see Art-de-vivre at the Place-des-Arts metro.

I can not take a view of St. Jerome because no real model (PVM, the 1000, etc.) is visible from so far. I took the screenshot from the aut. Metropolitan, substantially the same angle.

Here is a similar Google Earth screen shot from father back.

4 hours ago, Windex said:

It's crazy how a small footbridge is able to completely remove a tower of 185 meters  😜

What about the millions of people (not aware of this criteria) who are going to witness these buildings? What is it to them, one building or two buildings?

On 11/17/2019 at 7:18 AM, KOOL said:

Certainly more graceful than Maestria but we must not forget the VSLP and especially the Avenue whose great misfortune is to be very badly located, which is not at all the case of the SQ1. I do not know if this chart had already been placed, it's relative to the sea level. 

Is it just me, or are the relative heights of these structures (above sea level) in this diagram not quite right? 

Is it the XRAYS that would come to Montreal?