Nouveau plan d'urbanisme de la ville de Montréal : révision des hauteurs et densités

[monctezuma]

???? Le vidéo montre la partie ouest du centre-ville. On ne voit pas le nouveau Marriott du tout.

 

il y a plusieurs vidéos sur ce fil, retourne un peu plus en arrière, il y en a un sur la partie Est du centre-ville uniquement.

[WestAust]

Montreal set to loosen height, density restrictions for new buildings

 

Changes controversial; Bid to stimulate construction at odds with preservation of historic areas: critics

 

The city is planning to loosen the height and density restrictions for new buildings in several parts of downtown and Old Montreal, saying it hopes to stimulate construction on empty lots and areas it says could do with more intense development.

 

But while some groups say the changes being proposed will better protect the views on Mount Royal from one part of downtown north of Sherbrooke St. W., they may obstruct other iconic views and create development pressure on some historic low-rise neighbourhoods elsewhere.

 

Most of the changes call for raising the current height and density limits. However, one notable change in the other direction would lower the height limit from 25 metres to 16 metres at the foot of Mount Royal in the Golden Square Mile neighbourhood between Pine Ave. and Sherbrooke east of Guy St. and around the Collège de Montréal on Sherbrooke near Atwater Ave.

 

The borough says the change is meant to preserve existing views onto Mount Royal from the historic Square Mile, which still boasts some of the mansions of Montreal's 19th century elite, and other sites at the base of the mountain.

 

Meanwhile, the Ville Marie borough says other, mostly higher height and density limits it's proposing for more than 30 zones east, west and south of the mountain will allow developers to build up to 13,500 housing units and 750,000 square metres of office space in addition to the units and office space the borough has already approved for construction.

 

Some of the measures foretell plans to cover over the Ville Marie Expressway and allow construction on top up to 80 metres, or about 20 storeys.

 

But while the intentions are laudable, the measures are contradictory, preservationists told the city's Office de consultation publique de Montréal at public hearings on the proposal last week.

 

For instance, while the new 16-metre height limit in the Golden Square Mile would apply on the north side of Sherbrooke, another change would raise the height limit on the south side of Sherbrooke around the Museum of Fine Arts and Holt Renfrew from 25 metres to 65 metres.

 

"We're surely affected by the south side as well, of course," said Manon Vennat, a member of the Golden Square Mile Association, a non-profit group that was formed by residents and organizations in the neighbourhood who convinced the borough council this year to drop plans to raise the height restriction for a project to replace the partly demolished Redpath mansion on du Musée Ave., just above Sherbrooke.

 

Other proposals are raising hackles for groups such as Heritage Montreal. Among them:

 

--Raise the height limit on both sides of St. Laurent Blvd. to 80 metres from 44 metres and 60 metres between Old Montreal and Chinatown;

 

--Raise the height limit from 25 metres to 80 metres between Dorchester Square, at René Lévesque Blvd. W. and Peel St., and Drummond St.;

 

--Raise the height limit from 25 metres to 120 metres behind either side of Mackay St. at René Lévesque.;

 

--Raise the height limit from 60 metres to 80 metres around the future rebuilt Bonaventure Expressway, which the city plans to level and where heritage groups have objected to plans to allow blocks of towers that they say will obstruct the view of the river;

 

--Raise the height limit from 25 metres to 35 metres on Bishop and Crescent Sts., between Ste. Catherine and René Lévesque.

 

The borough expects to have its final proposals approved by city council in February.

 

The borough's plan is geared to preserving two specific views of the mountain, from the new Place des Festivals in front of Place des Arts and from the terrace at Montreal city hall in Old Montreal, but it ignores 16 other views of the mountain that the city has declared are worth preserving, the group Les Amis de la Montagne contends.

 

The group also wonders why the borough chose the terrasse of city hall, where the public is barred from access, as a vantage point.

 

In its brief to the OCPM last week, Heritage Montreal said it's thrilled with the lower height limit proposed for the north side of Sherbrooke, but called several of the height increases "unjustified" and in contradiction with efforts to preserve the low-rise character of older areas of downtown, such as Bishop-Crescent.

 

For instance, the group objects to increasing the height limit from 44 metres to 65 metres behind the 19th century Mount Stephen Club on Drummond.

 

And it says the plan to increase the height limit from 25 metres to 80 metres between Dorchester Square and Drummond contradicts current efforts to turn Dorchester Square into a heritage zone.

 

Heritage Montreal said in its brief it's "concerned about the highly technical nature" of the changes because they seem innocuous to the average citizen.

 

Yet by making a slew of changes to the urban plan for large sections of downtown and Old Montreal, the group says the city will give blanket new development rights to builders who won't have to submit individual projects for public consultation as long as they meet the more generous building restrictions.

 

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Montreal+loosen+height+density+restrictions+buildings/5815672/story.html

[Rocco]

On est dans un centre-ville, mais selon Héritage Montréal, rien ne doit dépasser 25 à 44 mètres! Si ils avaient été présent au tournant des années 50-60, on aurait encore un centre-ville avec des maisonnettes et des buildings de 4 étages. RIDICULE.

[Kotar]

--Raise the height limit from 25 metres to 120 metres behind either side of Mackay St. at René Lévesque.

 

[MtlMan]

Bumbaru: le taliban du préservationnisme. Trop c'est comme pas assez.

[Habsfan]

Bumbaru: le taliban du préservationnisme

 

Elle est bonne celle-la!

 

ON va m'Accuser d'être obsédé avec les hauteurs et que je ne cherche qu'a tapper sur la tête à Bumbaru, mais j'aimerais mentionner que je suis en faveur de réduire les hauteurs près du MOnt-Royal dans le Golden Square mile et je suis en faveur de préserver des hauteurs moins élevées à d'autres endroits, mais de là à bitcher contre toute les hauteurs ou les augmentations comme Bumbaru le fait, je trouve que je suis très correct.

Modifié 7 décembre 2011 par Habsfan

[pedepy]

Yet by making a slew of changes to the urban plan for large sections of downtown and Old Montreal, the group says the city will give blanket new development rights to builders who won't have to submit individual projects for public consultation as long as they meet the more generous building restrictions.

 

in other words, bambaru is afraid he won't be able to stuff his fucking nose down every last project this city is offered anymore..

[IluvMTL]

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Montreal+Density+push+finds+environmental+ally/5821482/story.html

 

MONTREAL - The city’s initiative to loosen height limits and increase density allowances across downtown and Old Montreal to stimulate development on vacant lots and parking lots has an unlikely ally – an environmental group that says it would nevertheless be more efficient for the city to raise the tax on parking lots to incite development.

 

The Ville Marie borough is setting new height and density restrictions for new constructions in several parts of downtown and Old Montreal, as The Gazette reported on Tuesday. The borough says the higher height and density limits it’s proposing for many zones east, west and south of the mountain will allow developers to build up to 13,500 housing units and 750,000 square metres of office space in addition to the units and office space already approved for construction.

 

The Conseil régional de l’environnement de Montréal says the measures to increase the building potential in many areas will be a useful carrot to encourage residential and office construction.

 

However, the group’s analysis of the borough’s proposal finds that only 18 of the 138 surface parking lots, or 13 per cent, it counted are in zones where the height restrictions are to be raised. For 106 other parking lots, representing more than three-quarters of the lots, the borough’s measures propose no change. In fact, the measures would actually lower the height restrictions for the remaining 14 parking lots.

 

If the primary goal of the changes is to stimulate development on vacant and underdeveloped lots, they only affect a small portion of them, says Daniel Bouchard, who’s in charge of transport and planning initiatives for CRE-Montréal.

 

“A third strategy is missing in the borough’s review of heights and densities,” he said: the surtax on parking lots the administration of Mayor Gérald Tremblay introduced for downtown in 2010.

 

The tax is levied on 98 per cent of the lots located in the zones where the borough wants to change height and density limits, Bouchard said.

 

CRE-Montréal, which presented a brief at public hearings on the height and density proposals before the city’s Office de consultation publique de Montréal last week, is calling for an increase in the rate to entice the lots’ owners to build.

 

The tax, which applies to indoor and outdoor lots, is generating about $190 million in revenue for the city this year, which goes to fund public transit. The current tax rate varies from $4.95 per square-metre to $19.80.

 

“Raising the parking lot tax would be the most powerful tool to incite people who have parking lots on valuable and strategic land to develop them,” he said.

 

lgyulai@montrealgazette.com

 

 

 

Read more: http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Montreal+Density+push+finds+environmental+ally/5821482/story.html#ixzz1fsCkwgnf

[MtlMan]

Il était temps qu'ils se manifestent! C'est évident que favoriser la construction en hauteur bénéficie à l'environnement en ralentissant l'étalement.

[GDS]

And now some words from the small minded Henry Aubin, the media branch of Heritage Montreal. Giant buildings start at 10 storeys for this guy, and become mamoth buildings at 20.

 

 

Carried away by a good plan

downtown development proposal is an intelligent document but it's too generous with some of its height allowances

By HENRY AUBIN, The Gazette

 

Read more: http://www.montrealgazette.com/Carried+away+good+plan/5827888/story.html#ixzz1fybcvwzI

 

 

A developer two years ago sought to build a 34-storey condo/hotel tower in a vacant lot just north of René-Lévesque Blvd. on Mackay St. - a block at the western edge of downtown that is mostly filled with parking lots and three-storey greystone houses. The project was wildly out of scale with its neighbourhood and the Tremblay administration properly refused to change the zoning to allow it.

 

This year, however, the administration has drafted a new proposal for developing downtown. If the proposal is adopted in its present form, that same giant tower would conform with the new rules on height along Mackay St. That height limit could increase from 25 metres, the equivalent of about eight residential floors, to 120 metres, which is high enough for that original 34-storey project. In fact, the developer could actually add several extra floors.

 

The Mackay St. situation illustrates both the laudable and the questionable aspects of the city hall's overall proposal.

 

In principle, the plan shines with intelligence. That principle is to encourage development - especially the development of those outdoor parking lots whose great number shocks visitors, robs neighbourhoods of conviviality, encourages workers and students to come into the city by car rather than by public transit and hinders the back-to-downtown residential trend. Owners of the parking lots cling to the status quo because parking is more lucrative than development. The main reason: City hall's zoning often prevents construction of profitably large structures.

 

The Tremblay administration figures that allowing bigger buildings would spur development of parking lots as well as redevelopment of existing built-up areas. The problem is that the drafters of this plan have sometimes got carried away and whipped up height limits that are too generous.

 

A 120-metre height limit might make sense in some parts of the downtown core, but Mackay St. is a good example of a place that is somewhat away from the core and that would benefit from a more modest limit.

 

As it happens, some blocks that are at the very centre of the core need more sensitivity from the planners. Take, for example, that short, somewhat shabby block of Peel St. just south of Ste. Catherine and fronting on Dorchester Square; it features two-or three-storey fast-food joints and watering holes. It's great to encourage redevelopment of this stretch by increasing the height limit, which is now at a meagre 25 metres. The plan, however, would jack this up to 80 metres, good for a 20-storey office building. That would be big enough to block some sun from Dorchester Square, a popular place for office workers to bring box lunches. Moderation, please.

 

Note that some parts of the core already allow buildings up to 210 metres high, good for about 70 floors of condos. The plan would keep that limit in place. The city might do well to reconsider that limit for condos. Montreal is not Manhattan: There's a glut - not a shortage - of empty land here. Two 35-storey residential buildings would accommodate just as many people as a 70-storey one and make for a more congenial neighbourhood: Huge buildings bring wind, shadow and, too often, an impersonal spirit.

 

Still, this critique should not distract from the main point: This plan forges in the right direction and does several good things at once. It would shrink our plague of vacant lots, bring more people downtown, improve the city's tax base and make what is already one of North America's most animated downtowns still more so.

 

But Mayor Gérald Tremblay should remember: Mammoth buildings aren't needed now. If in the years ahead there's truly a massive demand for living and working downtown, the city could at that time change the height and density rules accordingly. In the meantime, easy does it.

 

haubin@montrealgazette.com

 

 

 

Read more: http://www.montrealgazette.com/Carried+away+good+plan/5827888/story.html#ixzz1fybHYqrN