Limite de hauteur à 200m, pour ou contre ?

[KOOL]

 

 

il y a une heure, tokywan a dit :

 

Je crois que Montreal doit emboiter le pas et passer à cette étape suivante. Laisser un promotteur construire 1 gratte-ciel à 300 metre de hauteur serait mieux que 2 gratte-ciels de 180 metre. 

Un trois-cent mètre à Montréal serait aussi inapproprié que la Tour Montparnasse à Paris mais quand même beaucoup moins ridicule que ne l'aurait été le Phare à Sainte-Foy. Toutes proportions gardées ça donnerait un skyline aussi bizarre que celui d'Albany...

 

[daniel_88]

Ce skyline est digne d'un film de science-fiction. 🙂

Extraits de Wikipedia:

«The plaza was the idea of Governor Nelson Rockefeller, who was inspired to create the new government complex»

«Rockefeller conceived the basic design of the complex with architect Wallace Harrison in flight aboard the governor's private plane. Rockefeller doodled his ideas in pen on the back of a postcard, and Harrison revised them».

[Julpyz]

On 2022-05-17 at 12:46 PM, KOOL said:

Un trois-cent mètre à Montréal serait aussi inapproprié que la Tour Montparnasse à Paris mais quand même beaucoup moins ridicule que ne l'aurait été le Phare à Sainte-Foy. Toutes proportions gardées ça donnerait un skyline aussi bizarre que celui d'Albany...

I don't remember who made this on this forum, so sorry for the lack of credit, but I think a 300m in Montreal wouldn't look that out of place...

[LindbergMTL]

il y a 11 minutes, Julpyz a dit :

I don't remember who made this on this forum, so sorry for the lack of credit, but I think a 300m in Montreal wouldn't look that out of place...

Magnifique!

[Rusty]

Same opinion here 😉 

[mont royal]

4 minutes ago, Rusty said:

Same opinion here 😉 

Not here.

Completely ridiculous in fact. We don't live our daily Montreal lives on the south shore marveling at the symmetry of the skyline. Does it somehow enhance our masculinity to have towers stretching upwards? Do we seriously think that tourists will be drawn to Montreal instead of New York or Hong Kong or Dubai because we have one or two or even a few high buildings?

I just don't get it. 

Yes there is a strong argument for greater density, but that can be done, as it should be, by ensuring first and foremost  that it improves the quality of our lives where it really counts...at the street level.

We see on another thread  that Montreal is ranked at ninth position in the world...and that one of its strong drawing points is the quality of our architecture.  Toronto,  with all of its towers, in ranked in the high 20's...in part probably because most of those towers loom over deserted streets after 5PM.

That being said, my concern is that our most attractive architecture was built decades, if not centuries ago. I cannot imagine tourists flocking to Griffentown 100 years from now to marvel at at its unique architecture. 

Perhaps we should start a thread monitoring the aesthetic progression, or lack thereof, in our city, instead of obsessing on height. 

[LexD]

58 minutes ago, mont royal said:

Not here.

Completely ridiculous in fact. We don't live our daily Montreal lives on the south shore marveling at the symmetry of the skyline. Does it somehow enhance our masculinity to have towers stretching upwards? Do we seriously think that tourists will be drawn to Montreal instead of New York or Hong Kong or Dubai because we have one or two or even a few high buildings?

I just don't get it. 

Yes there is a strong argument for greater density, but that can be done, as it should be, by ensuring first and foremost  that it improves the quality of our lives where it really counts...at the street level.

We see on another thread  that Montreal is ranked at ninth position in the world...and that one of its strong drawing points is the quality of our architecture.  Toronto,  with all of its towers, in ranked in the high 20's...in part probably because most of those towers loom over deserted streets after 5PM.

That being said, my concern is that our most attractive architecture was built decades, if not centuries ago. I cannot imagine tourists flocking to Griffentown 100 years from now to marvel at at its unique architecture. 

Perhaps we should start a thread monitoring the aesthetic progression, or lack thereof, in our city, instead of obsessing on height. 

nothing you just said makes any pertinent argument against adding ONE 300m tower in the center of the skyline.

[Né entre les rapides]

Est-ce que la raison d'être d'une tour est d'altérer (présumément d'améliorer) le skyline?  -- Je pense que non, même si ladite tour peut effectivement mais involontairement avoir un effet bénéfique sur le skyline.

La tour doit avoir une utilité propre, par exemple accroître les superficies quand l'espace disponible au sol est rare, ou permettre des vues exceptionnelles aux étages supérieurs dépassant les hauteurs avoisinantes.   

1) Il ne manque pas d'espaces constructibles au centre de Montréal.

2)  Il peut arriver que les avantages des vues obtenues aux étages supérieurs dépassant les hauteurs avoisinantes soient contrebalancés par des désavantages pour les voisins.  C'est le zonage qui est censé faire l'arbitrage, idéalement ex ante.   

3) Ce ne sont pas invariablement des tours élevées qui confèrent à un skyline son caractère iconique.  C'est sans doute le cas pour Manhattan, mais pas Vancouver, où ce sont les montagnes qui s'élèvent au nord de Burrard Inlet, ni Sydney avec son opéra situé dans le port.  

 

 

[job]

8 hours ago, LindbergMTL said:

Magnifique!

Finally something that would merit excitement ... would make a world class skyline  

[LindbergMTL]

Il y a 8 heures, mont royal a dit :

Not here.

Completely ridiculous in fact. We don't live our daily Montreal lives on the south shore marveling at the symmetry of the skyline. Does it somehow enhance our masculinity to have towers stretching upwards? Do we seriously think that tourists will be drawn to Montreal instead of New York or Hong Kong or Dubai because we have one or two or even a few high buildings?

I just don't get it. 

Yes there is a strong argument for greater density, but that can be done, as it should be, by ensuring first and foremost  that it improves the quality of our lives where it really counts...at the street level.

We see on another thread  that Montreal is ranked at ninth position in the world...and that one of its strong drawing points is the quality of our architecture.  Toronto,  with all of its towers, in ranked in the high 20's...in part probably because most of those towers loom over deserted streets after 5PM.

That being said, my concern is that our most attractive architecture was built decades, if not centuries ago. I cannot imagine tourists flocking to Griffentown 100 years from now to marvel at at its unique architecture. 

Perhaps we should start a thread monitoring the aesthetic progression, or lack thereof, in our city, instead of obsessing on height. 

Chacun ses goûts.  J’aime le contraste, les différentes hauteurs, les plafonnements à 120 et 200 m rendent le  skyline monotone … platte à mes yeux.