Karlam

On 2020-10-25 at 6:13 PM, Maxence said:

Je trouve ça très générique, j'espère que le résultat final me prouvera le contraire.

Hello   ,I agree totally. There could have been something spectacular with this project and area. So wasted opportunity. Instead they went with cereal box design . Also  Maestra , Philips square. Why  can not think outside the box.....design.?

4 hours ago, Ricardo100 said:

Voici un argument de poids !

Very good .The references are well illustrated. Very heavy machineryindeed .Thanks 

20 hours ago, andisate said:

Elle pèse plus de 47 000 lbs!

Hi , that number seem too high .I would think one of those would be about maybe 30 000 lbs...without the man inside of course .

On 2019-12-13 at 3:09 PM, David St-Laurent said:

Is that the special penthouse for the special people?

37 minutes ago, FrancSoisD said:

This is not a structural element for the construction site by any means, as excavation merely started, and will probably last almost a year. It's simply a temporary protection for pedestrians, the type which is usually welcome, as it interferes the least with the safety of active and reduced mobilities: there are usually no plywood ramps nor annoying forced detours through 2 intersections involved. 👍

This is contrary to Canvar's project on the south side of PK Ave. (among many other pedestrian-unfriendly construction sites), which blocks both the sidewalk and a protected bike path... 👎

Yeah , that is what I thought. Heh heh .I was able to witness the  yr 92 209 meter towers being built .so looking forward to witness these latest  four 200 Meter towers to go up .I think this one will have the most interruption and inconvenient .With it being  at next to place does festivals .How will that end up ?

53 minutes ago, acpnc said:

Ils commencent par la passerelle?

I think the way they are building these towers  does not look like the will be too steady maybe ?

17 hours ago, SupremeMTL said:

there is a billboard on the corner of st antoine and de la montagne that says this project is now in construction. was unable to take a picture as i was driving

Excellent news .I am looking forward for this one to start , looks like a building in Atlanta.. 

14 minutes ago, vanylapep said:

25 octobre 2019

 

Yes ,now that is what I was talking about .I did ,....I  did see a puddy cat.Thanks for the picture.

19 minutes ago, IluvMTL said:

Breaking down the stone? I thought they were supposed to preserve the stones and rebuild that wall.

Well ,I was driving hy it pretty fast .They could have been still preserving them ..Anyways ,I am still excited they are doing something .It would be super if they could start digging before the new year.

15 hours ago, Né entre les rapides said:

Nous tous pouvons essayer de mieux encore discerner et caractériser le phénomène que nous observons.  Ainsi, pour discussion:

-  La hausse importante des mises en chantier à Montréal ne s'accompagne pas d'une hausse aussi spectaculaire des prix que ce qui avait été vécu à Vancouver et Toronto; il faut comprendre que cette hausse des prix dans ces deux villes était aussi le reflet d'une insuffisance de l'offre (et de la capacité de l'accroître suffisamment) face à l'accroissement de la demande.  Les causes de cette insuffisance doivent être en bonne partie recherchées du côté de la rareté des terrains constructibles, entraînant une hausse démesurée de cette composante du prix total.  Naturellement, cette hausse s'est répandue sur l'ensemble du stock (existant) de maisons --dont certaines ont été/sont acquises pour mettre la main sur le terrain.  On peut penser qu'à Montréal la hausse de la demande a été et demeure encore raisonablement satisfaite par une hausse correspondante de l'offre.

- Dans le passé (plus ou moins récent selon votre perspective i.e. votre âge!), on a observé des booms quantativement semblables; une différence notable cette fois-ci est qu'une part sensiblement plus importante des mises en chantier d'immeubles résidentiels se produit au centre-ville et dans les quartiers centraux, par opposition à la banlieue.  Les nouveaux immeubles au centre-ville sont beaucoup plus visibles que les milliers d'hectares (1 ha= 0,01km2) qui avaient été couverts de maisons unifamiliales en banlieue.

Des "prescriptions" visant à favoriser l'accroissement de l'offre feront (peut-être) l'objet d'une prochaine intervention.  On pourra aussi s'attarder, séparément, aux facteurs qui déterminent l'évolution de la demande.

Hey everybody ,I drove by this site this morning at around 8:am and they were breaking down that stone wall with the evacuated ground on that Lot.Wish I could have taken a photo .Looks ĺike they are prparing to level that ground for construction perhaps . 

8 minutes ago, Gabmtl said:

Rocco était sarcastique.

Yeah ,I got fooled .But it will add to the density.It actually looks like an office tower complexe is it  going to be mixed use ?

8 minutes ago, Rocco said:

Wow quelle originalité, quelle audace! Je suis plus que surpris!

Oh yeah,moi aussi .C'est vrainent sharp.Mais j'atends toujours un  tour avec un design plus extraordinaire age in toit caree .Angle ,curved ,pointu  meme rond.

2 hours ago, go_habs_go said:

I LOOOOOVE the view of downtown coming in from the west on the 720 est...or should I say the 138 est now. What an amazing transformation in less than 5 years.

Howdy.We also have the old Montreal Forum area condos and offices building near Rene Levesque .That should look like a mini downtown skyline .But of Westmount.

2 hours ago, Né entre les rapides said:

In this case, the single most important imperative was to have it completed asap.  What you suggest might be undertaken elsewhere, when completion time is not of the essence.  Presumably, other locations on earth where renewable energy sources and  spare space for new buildings are rare, such as the Pearl River Delta, would be primary cadidates for such original undertakings.  There are many other ways for Québec/Canada engineering firms to demonstrate their proficiency and expertise, notably in situations of harsh climatic conditions.

Excellent comentary rebut. If the time and the considerable vision of something like this new idea were all recalculated it would elsewhere. Here I think we dream big but not big enough most times .I am also do excited to have this bridge nearly completed. 

1 hour ago, Windex said:

 

Great work, to the planners and bulders .I think this bridge could have been so much more  Imagin if they could have made it public and private joint venture o build housing units incorporated  in the bridge super structure .Energy from wind ,hydro ,solar,  magneticcould be harnessed and stored to power the inhabitants homes .This could behave been a world first .Plus it would be the absolute best view of our city skyline .You think it would have worked ?

On 2019-06-04 at 10:28 PM, caribb said:

Personally I prefer all blue or all red.. but hey white will do 🙂  ..and I’ll leave it up to you to make the disco ball suggestion to PVM.. or better still a laser ball!

33 minutes ago, Karlam said:

 

Especially to have this towers with its cable light up in colors for any occasion would be awesome. Also a good idea would be to install fireworks cannons to celebrate any holiday on the new bridge just like many world wide architecture center pieces. 

On 2019-06-02 at 6:23 AM, tokywan said:

Malgré que jaurai bien voulu qu'il ait deux grand pilier sur ce pont, je ne le trouve pas décevant. C'est bien 21e siècle, c'est jolie!

I agree , a pair of towers would have been much nicer.I have mentioned before to symbolize the letter "M " maybe for Montreal or Magnificent or Marvelous or Merveilleux.One is too simple but adequate .Just my opinion .

1 minute ago, rufus96 said:

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)

Great , that information was more accurate in explaining and informing the average skyscraper and skyline enthusiast like me .Thanks .I look so forward for this building to materialize .

33 minutes ago, g.s mtl said:

 I saw this article today....  its 220m above sea level.

http://www.msn.com/fr-ca/finances/affaires/bataille-de-promoteurs-pour-ériger-«-la-plus-haute-tour-résidentielle-de-montréal-»/ar-AAC9XrM?li=AAggxAW&ocid=iehp

 

 Le promoteur affirme que la tour atteindra 220 mètres par rapport au niveau de la mer, soit le maximum permis par le règlement montréalais.

Hello, so since Montreal is about 150 meter above sea level .This building would be only about 70 meters tall fro the street it is on ? That can not be or can it ?I think this is confusing to the public , as to not be to expectant of the final height .That building company has less pressure  to deal with that way .

5 minutes ago, Karlam said:

Well , I think when there is a flood and the water levels settles , they can see exactly the height of the water level on the building. To determine if the calculation of  tower height were correct .Just a possibility..Above or below sea level etc.

Yeah , all jokes aside , I believe building height , total or roof should be determined and stated from thr  imediate ground it is on .Cities and places need to be specified if at below or above sea level ,etc.Just my opinion .

12 minutes ago, monctezuma said:

"Un demi million de dollars", c'est bien plus impressionnant que "cinq cent mille dollars"

"200m au dessus du niveau de la mer", c'est bien plus impressionnant que "180m"*

*je ne sais pas quelle sera la hauteur, c'est pour les fins de l'exemple

Well , I think when there is a flood and the water levels settles , they can see exactly the height of the water level on the building. To determine if the calculation of  tower height were correct .Just a possibility..Above or below sea level etc.

22 minutes ago, rufus96 said:

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.

Very good points indeed. In the embedded, infiltrated world of our construction industry with corruption  and ,collusion   most of the time we got to  just take it .

58 minutes ago, Gjm127 said:

This is true but super unfortunate that the tilted tower is not embedded in the skyline. How cool would that have been? 

I still believe we need a landmark of some sort. Something that completes it, especially that hole between the 1000 and PVM. Some spire type tower or something. Obviously that's not happening... 

Hello, This is my second post . I agree that we need more variety in designs for our skyline  .This was the  nouveau for the 60 's and 70's.I could look at Doha , Shanhai  ,Dubai etc skyline all day .Each and everyone of those builds have a unique shape , color ,size true creative design..I hope that was not too much .

On 2018-12-24 at 12:49 PM, boluda said:

Le "voile" du pont a l'air bien seul je trouve. Dommage, ça aurait été bien un pont un tantinet plus statement...

Hello,I agree I am new contributer .The should have designed it with another to form an Big M.