ville-marie Tour des Canadiens - 50 étages

[SkahHigh]

^belle photo, merci!

[caribb]

Tout le monde disait la même chose d'Edmonton - ils avaient une limite à 150m et il y avait seulement 2 édifices de plus de 140m. 18 mois après avoir enlevé cette limite, il y a deux édifices en construction (250m et 191m) et il y a deux propositions (278m et 160m). Ce n'est pas évident de dire qu'est-ce qui se serait passé à Montréal sans ces limites...

 

Just a side note, I was told by an Edmonton resident that they had a downtown building height limit because of the nearby downtown airport.. the landing path to the runway was over downtown. That airport was later closed and the need for the height limit disappeared. Montreal's height limit is dubious in my opinion. Is it more about seeing the mountain from downtown or the unobstructed view for the wealthy residents from the mountain? I've never bought the "viewing the mountain" argument. Hardly anyone goes downtown to to view the mountain. People can see it from 3 other sides if they really want to see it. There's a great view from the Olympic Stadium tower and in my opinion the view looking south of St Joseph's oratory is beautiful. Furthermore there's no need to stop economic development just so people on the south shore can see it.. If it's about livability in the core then I don't see how for instance two 30 story buildings is any better than one 60 story one.. it's twice the amount of obstruction, more densification and creates less sunlight.. so in my view, free the city to grow as it should and make it stand out among all the others if contractors want to build higher.

Modifié 27 décembre 2015 par caribb

[Rocco]

The height limit is perfect we dont need towers exceeding 50 storeys. Thats tall enough.

[Flo]

//brief digression alert

 

Just a side note, I was told by an Edmonton resident that they had a downtown building height limit because of the nearby downtown airport.. the landing path to the runway was over downtown. That airport was later closed and the need for the height limit disappeared. Montreal's height limit is dubious in my opinion. Is it more about seeing the mountain from downtown or the unobstructed view for the wealthy residents from the mountain? I've never bought the "viewing the mountain" argument. Hardly anyone goes downtown to to view the mountain. People can see it from 3 other sides if they really want to see it. There's a great view from the Olympic Stadium tower and in my opinion the view looking south of St Joseph's oratory is beautiful. Furthermore there's no need to stop economic development just so people on the south shore can see it.. If it's about livability in the core then I don't see how for instance two 30 story buildings is any better than one 60 story one.. it's twice the amount of obstruction, more densification and creates less sunlight.. so in my view, free the city to grow as it should and make it stand out among all the others if contractors want to build higher.

 

Touché, based on skyline shots taken at ground level, the extant MTL skyline doesn't make the Mont Royal any more prominent from downtown. Even more so ludicrous is the urban sprawl created by height restrictions. Had a 100-or-sthg height limitation been imposed on the city of Vancouver, scarce arable land/pastures would have been squandered on the outskirts of the city for built-up areas. Generally speaking, the morphology of a city should be construed as either an islet of boxes (typical Roman Lutetia-like architecture) or a bell-shaped curve (Manhattanish) with seamless immensurate verticality. In a nutshell, you either love skyscrapers or hate them. Anything in between is pointless (Sao-Paolo). However, in real-case situations, urban planners should be open to concessions and the implementation of sightlines and protected views along specific axes is one of them. I believe urban planning should make use of intelligent rules and agile paradigms that address demographic pressures and economic constraints.

 

The height limit is perfect we dont need towers exceeding 50 storeys. Thats tall enough.

 

If the height limit was perfect, special requests to amend height restrictions would be nonexistent. As Caribb puts it, the way decision-makers have been thinking beneath a 200m perspective has been in several ways counter-productive.

 

//End of brief digression alert

[vivreenrégion]

Ils pourraient délimiter une très petite zone de 240m. obliger un concours de design et , ce qui se trouve entre 210-240m soit un ornement. comme ça on aurait pas des bureaux ou condos plus haut que la limite de 210m, mais on aurait un peak de skyline avec du style.

[mont royal]

The mountain is more than just part of a `sightline`. It is the heart of the city; it is the historical and even spiritual centre-point (and I don`t mean religious). De Maisonneuve`s carrying of the cross in thanks for the survival of the city gives meaning to our city in a much more profound and human way than does any man-made tribute to wealth and power. Today it remains our living core, filled with families picnicking, kids and adults playing soccer, cross country-skiing in the winter, student joggers and respectful tourists. If the mountain were to be removed from our daily sightlines it would be a permanent loss for us. Montreal would be reduced to just another jumble of towers. No coincidence I guess, that I chose Mont Royal as my moniker.

[andre md]

Avant de commencer a penser a aller en hauteur faudrait surtout penser a délimiter un espace entre une tour et la rue.

Montreal est surement la grosse ville nord-americaine avec les rues les plus etroite. Aucun probleme a ce qu'une tour soit haute mais elle doit avoir un bon dégagement avec le bord de la rue.

Sinon on se retrouve avec des cañon ombragé comme par exemple la rue viger avec le CHUM et le centre de recherche. Ou encore la rue des canadiens encore pire.

 

Oui a des tours hautes mais elle doivent etre degager. Paris on leur quartier de la defense pour les hautes tours par exemple.

 

Athenes une ville magnifique que j'ai visiter avec en plein centre le promontoire ou se trouve l'acropolis. Personne la-bas ne songerai a construire d'immense tour qui cacherai le parthenon.

[KOOL]

Paris on leur quartier de la defense pour les hautes tours par exemple.

Paris a aussi la tour Montparnasse. Aucune ville n'est parfaite.

[FrancSoisD]

D'acc avec les 4 dernières interventions!

 

Par contre je serais partisan d'une petite zone dépassant la limite de 232,5m, mais uniquement au pied du centre-ville, aux abords du boul. Robert-Bourassa (à l'est de Peel et à l'ouest de McGill for sure), et peut-être aussi pour des tours résidentielles de diverses hauteurs sur la pointe du Havre (la vue vers le fleuve à partir du belvédère Kondiaronk y est déja passablement obstruée). Ceci dit, c'est pas dit qu'on aura des développeurs pour remplir ces terrains à leur plein potentiel anyway!

 

Et je suis plus que d'acc avec le dernier commentaire d'andre md: une ville qui respire (et prend vie sous le soleil) au niveau de la rue, a fortiori sur des rues très passantes telles l'ave des Canadiens!

 

OK, de retour au sujet de la TdC1... mais rien à déclarer à ce sujet qui n'ait été répété maintes fois!

[MtlMan]

Ils pourraient délimiter une très petite zone de 240m. obliger un concours de design et , ce qui se trouve entre 210-240m soit un ornement. comme ça on aurait pas des bureaux ou condos plus haut que la limite de 210m, mais on aurait un peak de skyline avec du style.

 

A-GREED!! Makes perfect sense.