internationalx Posted January 8, 2019 Share Posted January 8, 2019 https://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/city-needs-blueprint-to-guide-development-heritage-montreal I wasn't sure where to put this but felt this section was appropriate. While the piece brings up valid and important issues about heritage preservation, I find that it has such a anti-development undertone and focuses on building heights of towers more than anything else; I wish there would be a focus on architectural quality and standards more so than the perennial boogeyman of towers! She seems to be suggesting that skyscrapers are anathema to heritage preservation and to the livable city. Obviously, some neighborhoods - built neighborhoods - are to be preserved as low-rise but in the downtown core / CBD, to complain about towers? Griffintown is banal not because of the 20-storey limit but because the architecture is banal. 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Djentmaster001 Posted January 8, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted January 8, 2019 I love how when I talk to urban planners and some citizens, they say that our heritage is threatened and yes, they do mean by taller towers. What's hilarious though is that they think building four-floor buildings all over downtown is more sustainable than building high rises and leaving more spaces for parks and services. They complain about all glass towers but we literally have what? not even two dozen downtown out of 500+ highrises? it's clear they're anti-development and use towers as an excuse to stop development, yet the urban fabric of the downtown core is much better now than five+ years ago. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ousb Posted January 8, 2019 Share Posted January 8, 2019 (edited) il y a 49 minutes, Djentmaster001 a dit : I love how when I talk to urban planners and some citizens, they say that our heritage is threatened and yes, they do mean by taller towers. What's hilarious though is that they think building four-floor buildings all over downtown is more sustainable than building high rises and leaving more spaces for parks and services. They complain about all glass towers but we literally have what? not even two dozen downtown out of 500+ highrises? it's clear they're anti-development and use towers as an excuse to stop development, yet the urban fabric of the downtown core is much better now than five+ years ago. Ridicule. Surtout quand il donne l’exemple des triplexes du plateau. Pas besoin d’etre un genie en maths pour comprendre que ce modele aurait besoin d’être reproduit à grande échelle pour offrir une bonne densité. Sur les petits terrains du centre ville un triplexe ne donnera JAMAIS la densité d’une tour de 50 étages. C’est même pas sérieux de dire ça. And I don’t need to be an urban planner to know that. Etre une ville de passé c’est très bien mais etre une ville du futur c’est bien aussi! On va pas arrêter le développement à cause des victoriennes. Come on now. Des tours ayant toutes moins de 185m et ca parle de « giant towers ». Bruh l’exagération. Montréal n’est pas un village c’est normal d’avoir des tours. Toutes les grandes métropoles en ont. Ce message est vraiment redondant Edited January 8, 2019 by Ousb 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Habsfan Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 Ça fait longtemps que je ne porte plus attention aux articles de la Gazette ou de ce que Bumbaru peut bien dire! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MtlMan Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 Le 2019-01-07 à 23:36, Ousb a dit : Ridicule. Surtout quand il donne l’exemple des triplexes du plateau. Pas besoin d’etre un genie en maths pour comprendre que ce modele aurait besoin d’être reproduit à grande échelle pour offrir une bonne densité. Sur les petits terrains du centre ville un triplexe ne donnera JAMAIS la densité d’une tour de 50 étages. C’est même pas sérieux de dire ça. And I don’t need to be an urban planner to know that. Etre une ville de passé c’est très bien mais etre une ville du futur c’est bien aussi! On va pas arrêter le développement à cause des victoriennes. Come on now. Des tours ayant toutes moins de 185m et ca parle de « giant towers ». Bruh l’exagération. Montréal n’est pas un village c’est normal d’avoir des tours. Toutes les grandes métropoles en ont. Ce message est vraiment redondant En plus ce n'est pas seulement une question de densification, mais aussi d'accès. ce que je veux dire c'est que, au vu de la valeur des terrains, pour rentabiliser un triplex, il faudrait le vendre plusieurs millions. Qui achètera ça sinon les plus riches? Pour la classe moyenne normale, ce n'est pas accessible. Alors ils défendent quoi au juste comme modèle? Tsé..... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.