Limite de hauteur à 200m, pour ou contre ?

[caribb]

Gothenburg Sweden/Suède. Apparently no height limit here. Seems out of place IMO   

[SKYMTL]

I think what all of these images of tall structures amid lower ones show the same thing:  the tallest buildings have architectural / design merit.  They aren't just hunks of concrete or "glass walls", there's thought put into their design and approval.  The Karla Tower in Gothenburg is proof of that.  

The problem here is developers seem to copy / paste designs of the lowest common denominator.  Griffintown, Square Childrens and literally every building over 10 floors in Laval is proof of that.   IMO, if we allow developers to build higher than 200m their designs absolutely need to be held to a much higher level of architectural accountability than the current generation of buildings here.  

[caribb]

23 hours ago, SKYMTL said:

I think what all of these images of tall structures amid lower ones show the same thing:  the tallest buildings have architectural / design merit.  They aren't just hunks of concrete or "glass walls", there's thought put into their design and approval.  The Karla Tower in Gothenburg is proof of that.  

The problem here is developers seem to copy / paste designs of the lowest common denominator.  Griffintown, Square Childrens and literally every building over 10 floors in Laval is proof of that.   IMO, if we allow developers to build higher than 200m their designs absolutely need to be held to a much higher level of architectural accountability than the current generation of buildings here.  

I agree we need to set a higher standard for taller buildings. For Gothenburg the building is impressive but it is Sweden after all, I’d expect it to be however despite that it is completely out of place there. It reminds me of the super modern black Banque Nationale building in Place d’Armes, impressive building totally out of place in its location. 
 

I’m really mixed on height limits in Montreal leaning more towards lifting the highest zones. I can’t honestly see buildings blocking out the mountain, it would take a large number, say  50 200m high buildings to really do that and that’s not going to happen in centuries. I’d rather they just regulate hight limited from the perspective of someone standing on the plaza at PVM and leave that view open forever and let there be at least one or two zone that permits buildings up to 300m or higher. 
 

If the restriction is based on the height of the cross on the mountain then another option could be to build a new taller cross and make it more of a tourist attraction in itself with a museum/information center about the cross and a lookout on the cross itself. If it’s a 50 meter high cross then the additional 20 meters height could be the new height limit plus we’d have a new tourist attraction that would give a wider view of the city, maybe a 360 degree view depending where it’s placed. At least it’s something.. being Montreal we could make it 120 meters 😝 

[KOOL]

Bon, Burnaby relègue Montréal encore plus bas dans la liste des villes canadiennes et leur plus haute tour. Regardons les choses du bon côté car Vancouver aussi a une limite max de 200m et heureusement on n'a rien à craindre du côté des villages de Québec, Ottawa et Winnipeg.  

The One, Toronto : 328m

M3 at M City, Mississauga : 260m

Stantec Tower, Edmonton : 250.8m

Brookfield Place, Calgary : 247m

Grand Tower at Sky Park, Burnaby : 230m

1000 DLG, Montréal : 205m

Shangri-La, Vancouver : 200.9m

[Weka 29]

Le 2023-06-30 à 09:35, caribb a dit :

Gothenburg Sweden/Suède. Apparently no height limit here. Seems out of place IMO   

Magnifique tour. Mais elle fait bizarre dans son environnement, du moins le peu que l'on en voit.

[Rocco]

[KOOL]

⬆️ Diffamation envers la mairesse. Sa dernière lubie en lice est « On va faire comme à Paris, 37m max », soit environ 8 étages.  

[Weka 29]

il y a 51 minutes, KOOL a dit :

⬆️ Diffamation envers la mairesse. Sa dernière lubie en lice est « On va faire comme à Paris, 37m max ». 

37m, c'est environ 11-12 étages pour du résidentiel, si je calcule bien. Ça veut dire que Haleco est beaucoup, beaucoup trop haut.

[Weka 29]

Il y a 1 heure, Rocco a dit :

3 étages, c'est parfait! Comme ça, on va accélérer l'étalement urbain et le 450 continuera à croître de façon exponentielle. Donc, on aura un REM vers Vaudreuil, Valleyfield, Laval, Mirabel, Repentigny, Boucherville, St-Hyacinthe, Chambly, St-Jean-sur-Richelieu...mais pas dans l'Est de Montréal.😛

[nicko2a]

Je tiens juste à dire que malgrès le fait que Paris soit limité a 37m, c'est une des villes les moins agreables à vivre où j'ai pu habiter.