newyorkontario

Il est bon que certains promoteurs conservent des vestiges (façades, etc.) du passé montréalais. Dans ce cas, c'est l'ensemble de la structure qu'ils restaurent (comme CF et Windsor Station). La saveur et le charme de la vieille ville subsistent malgré les nouvelles tours modernes en 'verre' qui sont érigées. On peut signaler ce facteur séduisant dans la plupart des villes européennes plus anciennes (Paris, Londres, Rome ....)

Voici un photo de La Place du Portage (numero 1 en termes de mètres carrés), Hull, PQ. Le gouvernement du Canada est son seul locataire. Le Complexe Desjardins (numero deux) a des bâtiments plus hauts.

Lol .... until the prospective height in meters is released we can only speculate about the impact. The tallest residential building around 36 floors in Icone (37 floors / 148m). BUT- Tom condos has 40 floors and is shorter than Icone. It's hard to forecast the real impact with no height in meters to work with. I like deeworks' 1st impression but I do not want to get too happy. NOTE: If: 1) 120m is the limit; and 2) no derogation is possible, it is easy to measure the correct impact in that case also.

Airbnb limited in Montreal's downtown core (video) https://montreal.ctvnews.ca/airbnb-limited-in-montreal-s-downtown-core-1.3971219 A new bylaw in Ville-Marie will limit short-term rentals to Ste. Catherine Street between St. Mathieu and Amherst streets. The motion was passed on Tuesday night at a borough council meeting. Some residents are relieved, saying that the downtown core had become too populated with short-term rental units. Airbnb has also been a target for complaints across Montreal. Tour des Canadiens (TDC1) has been known to host tourists in town for a weekend, leaving a mess to clean up for those who live in the building year-round. “We woke up the next morning and there was puke on the wall, puke on the carpet, the door was open the guys were passed out everywhere, looked like a bag of coke on the floor,” Real Carbonneau said. He lives in the building year-round, but says that half of it is Airbnb renters. Sometimes they pull the fire alarm as a joke in the middle of the night, causing everyone in the 50-story (TDC1) building to walk down to street level. “We call the police all the time,” he said. “The police are in the building every day, maybe five times a day.” Airbnb supporters say their options are now limited thanks to the new bylaw. “As a landlord and someone who owns one unit, it’s taking choice from me,” Scott Laws said. He owns a single rental unit in the borough. “They’re basically telling me who I can and can’t rent to.” Airbnb proponents say the borough acted too early and should have waited for the Quebec government to clarify the situation as part of legislation that is expected to pass by the end of this week.

I got three (3) downvotes just for musing if laminated wood has good resistance against fire. I never said that he (the wood) is combustible This post will get downvoted too. Downvotes lower the member's +/- score too. My score was +124. After the three (3) downvotes my score was +121.

I do not have a background in building safety codes or fire protection regulation. In the U.S. they have something called a CHAR code (fire retardant rating). I wonder how safe this wooden frame is? Remember this?:

Sooooo, redfu is wrong too? I'm just asking. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. But also, there is no point in arguing with someone who has a "zap" button.

Holy mackerel. It is interesting that you mentioned that the OCPM rejected Pontiac Fairview . This post reminds me of an exchange I had with some "omnipotent" members on this site a couple months ago. Some of the content is still up (under the 600 Peel Thread) but has been deleted by someone "possessed of inifinite ability". On 2018-02-04 at 10:36 AM, newyorkontario (me) wrote: CF wanted 210 meters for 750 Peel (or else they would have to reevaluate their investment). The OPCM said no again. If anything gets built at 750 Peel, the current plans is for 2 "tree stump" office buildings. Now comes the time for 600 Peel. I'm sure I want to build to 210 meters. Again, the OPCM has to give the "green light" to build to such a height. The expression is "3ed time a charm". Hopefully, CF will get the "green light" this time. A voice answered from the abyss writing: It is easy to find the OCPM website which has been submitted for public consultation. No 210-meter tower under the name of 750 Peel has also been subject to public consultation. Fake news. They were submitted to the OCPM by CF they were Canadians' Towers 2 and 3 and CF got what they wanted, which was an increase from 120 to 170. Do not tell anything. A second boss wrote: MTLURB is a serious site where serious people give serious information. This is not the first time you are absolutely everything and it is very frankly very unpleasant. This attitude is just making everyone waste time. Take it or leave it I then replied (with links): 1. The Cadillac Fairview towers submitted to OCPM: http://journalmetro.com/news/montreal/437419/the-project-of-two-new-cadillac-tours-fairview-soumis-a-locpm/ 2. To promote wants to build higher: http://www.tvanouvelles.ca/2014/01/29/un-promoteur-veut-construire-plus-haut 3. CADILLAC FAIRVIEW WANTS TO BUILD UP www.pressreader.com/canada/la-presse/.../282179354731034 Then "a voice from the abyss" said: The article did say that the original PPU asked for a change to 210 meters, but that was modified by the city before it submitted to the OCPM. So, in effect, your articles prove that you are wrong when you say that CF got rejected by the OCPM. CF NEVER subtracted to a formal request for the OCPM for no less than 210 meters, it simply never happened. The four letters "OCPM" evoked my memory.? * Note to those who do not like this post * -prove it's wrong. Short buildings.

I count less than 40 floors. Courtesy of "cv.concept" Humaniti Facebook picture.

L'étape prochaine consiste à construire les tours à 750 Peel. Je devrais dire au moins pour l'instant parce qu'ils changent leurs plans comme ils changent leur déshabillage. Selon le plan original: La phase un (1) est la construction des trois (3) Tours TDC. À l'avenir, la phase deux (2) serait les deux (2) tours de bureaux à proximité, 750, rue Peel. Par la suite, le plan de la phase trois (3) consistera à construire trois tours résidentielles au 600, rue Peel et sur la rue Saint-Jacques.

New photos of 750 Peel. The Deloitte Tower is actually higher than the two (2) new Peel towers (each 120m) in this rendering. They should have combined the two (2) small towers into (1) a taller tower. CF has updated its website (at least the part concerning 750 Peel). ... hmmm ... the construction on TDC3 has already begun. Maybe some work on 750 Peel will start soon? The 750 Peel will consist of two AAA towers, providing 1.2 million square feet of office space. The 750 Peel will also be designed for WELL certification and LEED Gold certification.

Moi aussi, selon cet article du 5 mai 2018, MLB regarde Montréal et la Ville de Mexico. Il y a un video aussi. "Mexico and Montreal are possible expansion locations as MLB commissioner 'would like to get to 32' teams" https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/mexico-and-montreal-are-possible-expansion-locations-as-mlb-commissioner-would-like-to-get-to-32-teams/ Friday night, the Los Angeles Dodgers kicked off the 2018 MLB Mexico Series with a combined no-hitter over the San Diego Padres (LA 4, SD 0) at Estadio de Beisbol in Monterrey. The Mexico Series is part of MLB's efforts to grow the game globally with series outside the United States and Toronto. Commissioner Rob Manfred sat in for interviews with both television broadcasts during Friday's game, and while discussing the possibility of expansion, he acknowledged MLB 'would like to get to 32" teams at some point in the future. This certainly isn't the first time Manfred has discussed the possibility of adding two new teams to the league. He talked about it back in 2016 -- he named Mexico City and Montreal as possible destinations at that time -- and last summer he added Charlotte as a possibility. A former Nike executive is making a push to bring a team to Portland. Ils pourraient jouer dans le "Big O" jusqu'à ce que le nouveau stade soit construit.

Don Cherry asked Gary Bettman about the NHL coming back to Quebec City last night during game 2 of the Stanley Cup Finals. Bettman gave a skeptical answer. https://ca.yahoo.com/sports/news/don-cherry-asks-gary-bettman-014122745.html LAS VEGAS - Don Cherry put NHL commissioner Gary Bettman on the spot on expanding the league back to Quebec City. Cherry and co-host Ron McLean were speaking on their coach's Corner segment on Wednesday night during the first intermission of Game 2 of the Stanley Cup final between the Washington Capitals and the Golden Knights expansion. Bettman was standing nearby and the Hockey Night in Canada. "Gary, what I'm saying is unbelievable to me," said Cherry. "There's never been a rivalry in hockey or any sport like Quebec and Montreal I think they've been very good, they've been keeping their mouths shut. The Quebec Nordiques entered the NHL in 1979 as part of the World Hockey Association's merger with the league. After struggling through their first season in the NHL, the Nordiques improved and began to rival the Montreal Canadiens. In 1995 the team relocated to Denver and became Colorado Avalanche. In 2015 a bid was made for Quebec City to earn a new expansion team. Buoyed by the completion of the Videotron Center that year, Quebec City was deferred until later date. The 18,259-seat arena has hosted several pre-season NHL games. "They had 18,000 people in there, they're a brand-new building, they're ready to go, I think it's fantastic," said Cherry before McLean co-directed Bettman in front of the camera. "What do you say? I think they are doing it. They really do." Boston Bruins owner Jeremy Jacobs had recently made his misgivings about a team in Quebec City. "A lot of issues, logistical and otherwise," said Bettman in response to McLean. "Mr. Jacobs expressed an opinion of some skepticism, but we are not in a process right now and he has one vote." Cherry re-stated his case for a return to Quebec City in reply before Bettman leaned over McLean and said "I think (Cherry) his popularity just went up in Quebec." Who's coming back? The Nordiques or the Expos? Or neither?

36 stories=120 metres Incredible

This is becoming a little pseudo-philosophical lol. (Is the real problem the park, or the tower, or the shadow created by the tower?) What you are saying would make sense (IMHO) and be rational only if the park was the primary reason for the acquisition in the first place. I would submit that this is not the case. The park is an added feature proposed by BNC (the last land buyer). 628 started selling units long ago without plans for a park. Broccolini then bought the main lot. Later, Brocco sold a portion to BNC. The park was not already there. The primary purpose for the development of this land is to build skyscrapers - the park is a nice after-thought in a bad location for a park (in the shadow of the towers). BNC is not going to build a park instead of the tower. Broccolini wants to put up condos. They (Brocco) did not spend whatever it was they did (100 million dollars) to build a park and then decide to add a tower to shadow the park. As a matter of fact Broccolini is 628. Both of you say skyscrapers next to the parks create the problem. Eliminating the skyscraper does not solve the problem - the land is bought for skyscrapers in the first place. Eliminating the park solves the problem.

Bravo. Point well taken. Parks next to skyscrapers can create problems as this May 2018 article about Toronto (king of skyscrapers) points out. There will be at least four (4) tall buildings in this area (The Stock Exchange, BNC, Victoria on the Park, 628 St Jacques, etc.) Two (2) of which are residential. Put the park somewhere else. City's new downtown plan aims to prevent high-rise shadows on parks, create 'livable' communities http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/condo-shadow-tocore-plan-1.4667335 City planners, residents, and councillors have all expressed their concerns for parks and playgrounds being shrouded in shadows. High-rise condo proposals across the city have been criticized for being too tall, too prone to blocking the sun.

I did not vote down Rocco's (or Kool's) post (I left no comment) - but I respectfully disagree with BNC's plan to build a park here. I mentioned this in my post on the article about the park in "The Press". I would rather see tall towers where standards allow this. This allows for density and utilization of the maximum potential for development (and no concern about shadows). (Property) tax revenue is another consideration. A park (in the shadows cast by BNC and Broccolini towers) will not generate this. Why not build the park in an area with low height restriction (and less shadows)? Ville Marie has tons of space like this. Generally speaking, trees do not grow more than 20/30 meters. The city should have a planning committee to prevent the loss of valuable resources (Broccolini and BNC paid millions for a piece of that empty lot). City's (Toronto) new downtown plan aims to prevent high-rise shadows on parks, create 'livable' communities http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/condo-shadow-tocore-plan-1.4667335

La Banque Nationale entend aménager un nouveau parc de 40 000 pieds carrés aux portes du Vieux-Port de Montréal, a appris La Presse. http://plus.lapresse.ca/screens/e407818c-f3c5-42c3-8850-81b6c6962846__7C___0.html Le parc sera construit sur la portion du terrain acheté par la Banque Nationale auprès de Broccolini qui a fait l’acquisition du lot de 135 000 pi2pour 100 millions cet hiver. Quelqu'un a mentionné un article sur le parc dans "MtlBlog" mais tout ce que j'ai pu trouver était cet article dans la Presse. Je préférerais qu'une autre tour soit construite en utilisant la terre mais ils ont décidé de construire un parc à la place.

Okay ... there's Devimco (Children's site). And there's Batimo (Atwater Street) too, now . Devimco is currently using the "old picture" on its website. And 2 or more (independent) projects ... okay. Gotcha (I "think", smh)

None of those pictures match the pictures I put up. I put the "confused" icon up because I do not see any new rendering for this project (like Ousb mentioned). Google images dated the top view photo from only 4 days ago. What do you mean I'm very active and old on the forum?

Does anyone have a link for the elusive new redering? Google images dates the pictures to 4 days ago. The picture on the bottom is currently on the Devimco website for this project. https://squarechildrens.ca/en/

Six (6) of the 30 MLB stadiums have retractable roofs: 1. Rogers Center, home of the Blue Jays Toronto: Construction cost USD $ 570 million (in 1989); 2. Chase Field, home of the Arizona Diamondbacks: Construction cost USD $ 354 million (in 1998) - would cost USD $ 550 million in 2018 dollars; 3. Safeco Field, home of the Seattle Mariners: Construction cost USD $ 517 million (in 1999) - USD $ 760 million in 2018 dollars; MOST EXPENSIVE 4. Miller Park, home of the Milwaukee Brewers: Construction cost USD $ 400 million (in 1991) - USD $ 553 million in 2018 dollars; 5. Minute Maid Park, home of the Houston Astros: Construction cost USD $ 250 million (in 2000) - USD $ 355 million in 2018 dollars; 6. Marlins Park, home of the Miami Marlins: Construction cost USD $ 634 million (in 2012) - USD $ 676 million in 2018 dollars. 7. At Seventh Park, Tropicana Field, home of the Tampa Bay Rays, has a fixed roof: Construction cost USD $ 130 million (in 1990) - USD $ 244 million in 2018 dollars. CHEAPEST and CRAPPIEST Each team has 80 home games a year so the stadium does get used quite a bit. Other events (concerts) can be hosted as well. Football and soccer stadiums are better for Winter Classic hockey games (old style outdoor hockey games)- the seating configuration is more intimate and accommodating.