internationalx

Heritage threatened by towers?

Recommended Posts

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.   

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Ousb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.