SameGuy

It was horrible. I gave up after a frustrating ten minutes.

I have nothing to add to @acpnc’s comments. This looks great... and site-appropriate. Now I’m daydreaming of a passerelle from the future elevator tower on the bridge to the nearest building of the development. 😁

Sorry to be cynical, but the Siemens Chargers are diesel-only, and at $1B are a huge investment for a corridor that doesn’t have even one-tenth the forecast ridership of REM (or 1/100 that of the STM Metro!). There isn’t a snowball’s chance in Hell that TC would authorize another multi-billion dollar rolling stock investment (for dual-mode Chargers) without also deciding to electrify the entire corridor (around $8B just for electrification and signalling). But then, electric locomotives run on 25KV while the REM will be 1500V, so... yeah. Never gonna happen.

Just saying...

I’m not sure it fits in Salle C2! 😂

Once again, the argument on one side isn’t with that the building should be built, or the church shouldn’t be protected, or it doesn’t matter if this project ends up blocking other buildings, so much as it is a disagreement with the what they perceive as a lack of vision at the CCU; on the other side, the position appear to be “the CCU’s opinion matches my own therefore it is the only correct opinion.” I’m sure my own opinion might change if I were sitting in on all the meetings and presentations of the CCU, fully taking part. But it seems that with certain people posting their opinions here, it’s, “I don’t care what the developer does to meet the conditions, I don’t want anything to block what I think is a work of art! None of your opinions matter!” Oh, and... IBTL 😁

LOL Je me souviens quand cela se répétait souvent avec la construction du Parc Olympique et du Complexe Desjardins au début des années 70! Là, avec le boost du QdS, le pronostic arrive (trois générations plus tard). Mais les tours s’étendent vers l’ouest aussi, avec ce boom peu croyable.

Et cela a également contribué à assurer la survie de l'église.

Please tell me which statement is a falsehood, and I’ll retract.

So you’re saying they should just raze St. George’s and build a modern one as part of the new project? I’m ok with that.

It’s funny I just noticed that in the thread title, but I don’t think any of us have been calling it “L’Anse...”

Place de la Cathédrale was perhaps the boldest and most creative design in this city during the 80s, and in my opinion, far more successful than either of the 1992 talls. Personally, I’d love to see something undertaken as audacious as the 1001 proposal.

Lol “In 1927, to cover upkeep costs, the church permitted a commercial building to be built in front of its Sainte Catherine Street façade. The building, adjoining the church's structure, concealed the church for over 78 years, the church itself being announced by a large neon sign.”

Le “centre ville” moderne était “la campagne” avant. La St. George’s Anglican Church est construite sur un cimetière juif. Just saying.

Just to clarify: I’m not on any committees and don’t know enough about this project other than what we’ve seen here. I’m neither for nor against this proposal at this time, precisely because I don’t know enough about it — and I am not, as inferred elsewhere in this thread, consumed by a “height-at-all-costs” perversion. What we’ve learned in this thread asks more questions than it answers, and I’d honestly like more information. Right now, the actions and logic of the CCU remain largely opaque.

Ce n’est enregistré ou inscrit nul part. Donc le CCU se base ses recommendations sur quel règlement?

Ok but back to brass tacks: neither 1000 DLG nor 1250 RL enjoy “protected heritage status.” I don’t get what the argument is, and why the CCU might suggest otherwise.

The Church of England is not crying for money; they choose not to invest in Saint George’s.

En effet, le bassin du Bord-du-Lac compte presque 200,000 habitants et travailleurs, et réellement leur donner une autre mode structurant pour atteindre la Métropole (et non que le centre-ville) ne peut être qu’une “good thing.”

My point is that “we build” because we must. Sure, if you want to seek an angle you’ll find one. But the one you show isn’t from street-level, ostensibly the objection of the CCU for this proposal. We build.

Mais d’où? Mtlurb so spoiled with the current boom, thinking

Exactly. If the projects over Gare Centrale and the South Block Lands ever go ahead, or somebody finally comes along to clean up Ste-Catherine between MC and RB (Club Super Sexe), they would be more elements to box in or cover up 1PVM. I’m okay with that at this point though. If a skinny, 175m tower is built over St George’s and provides all the aforementioned benefits, and the only shortcomings are that it blocks a small bit of IBM’s eastern façade at some angles from below or a tiny bit of the river from Kondiaronk, I don’t see that the CCU can block it outright.

I agree, but is it a designated protected landmark? More so than the now-hidden 1PVM, CIBC or Château-Champlain? What about Sun Life? All have become invisible in recent years.

This is beginning to sound a lot like the BAPE making pronouncements about a project’s financial viability. It is beyond the CCU’s purview to decide things outside of regulations. Heights, zoning, protected landmarks. Everything else is subjective. They can apply norms of aesthetics to prevent ersatz “sore thumbs” in neighbourhoods, but deciding that random buildings should be given protection from other equally random buildings is an overstep.