Recommended Posts

J'ai eu cette idée de


Quelle tour qui est présentement en contruction (ou recemment complétée) n'importe ou dans le monde, aimerais tu voir à Montréal?


N'oubliez pas les photos!


je commence le MoMa à NYC!!! Vraiment incroyable! NYC n'a vraiment pas peur de construire à l'avant garde. Il ne s'inquiètes pas des osties de NIMBY's!!!




New York Times

November 15, 2007




Next to MoMA, a Tower Will Reach for the Stars






A rendering of the Jean Nouvel-designed tower to be built adjacent to the Museum of Modern Art.




The interior of Jean Nouvel’s building, which is to include a hotel and luxury apartments.




Cass Gilbert’s Woolworth Building, William Van Alen’s Chrysler Building, Mies van der Rohe’s Seagram Building.


If New Yorkers once saw their skyline as the great citadel of capitalism, who could blame them? We had the best toys of all.


But for the last few decades or so, that honor has shifted to places like Singapore, Beijing and Dubai, while Manhattan settled for the predictable.


Perhaps that’s about to change.


A new 75-story tower designed by the architect Jean Nouvel for a site next to the Museum of Modern Art in Midtown promises to be the most exhilarating addition to the skyline in a generation. Its faceted exterior, tapering to a series of crystalline peaks, suggests an atavistic preoccupation with celestial heights. It brings to mind John Ruskin’s praise for the irrationality of Gothic architecture: “It not only dared, but delighted in, the infringement of every servile principle.”


Commissioned by Hines, an international real estate developer, the tower will house a hotel, luxury apartments and three floors that will be used by MoMA to expand its exhibition space. The melding of cultural and commercial worlds offers further proof, if any were needed, that Mr. Nouvel is a master at balancing conflicting urban forces.


Yet the building raises a question: How did a profit-driven developer become more adventurous architecturally than MoMA, which has tended to make cautious choices in recent years?


Like many of Manhattan’s major architectural accomplishments, the tower is the result of a Byzantine real estate deal. Although MoMA completed an $858 million expansion three years ago, it sold the Midtown lot to Hines for $125 million earlier this year as part of an elaborate plan to grow still further.


Hines would benefit from the museum’s prestige; MoMA would get roughly 40,000 square feet of additional gallery space in the new tower, which will connect to its second-, fourth- and fifth-floor galleries just to the east. The $125 million would go toward its endowment.


To its credit the Modern pressed for a talented architect, insisting on veto power over the selection. Still, the sale seems shortsighted on the museum’s part. A 17,000-square-foot vacant lot next door to a renowned institution and tourist draw in Midtown is a rarity. And who knows what expansion needs MoMA may have in the distant future?


By contrast the developer seems remarkably astute. Hines asked Mr. Nouvel to come up with two possible designs for the site. A decade ago anyone who was about to invest hundreds of millions on a building would inevitably have chosen the more conservative of the two. But times have changed. Architecture is a form of marketing now, and Hines made the bolder choice.


Set on a narrow lot where the old City Athletic Club and some brownstones once stood, the soaring tower is rooted in the mythology of New York, in particular the work of Hugh Ferriss, whose dark, haunting renderings of an imaginary Manhattan helped define its dreamlike image as the early-20th-century metropolis.


But if Ferriss’s designs were expressionistic, Mr. Nouvel’s contorted forms are driven by their own peculiar logic. By pushing the structural frame to the exterior, for example, he was able to create big open floor plates for the museum’s second-, fourth- and fifth-floor galleries. The tower’s form slopes back on one side to yield views past the residential Museum Tower; its northeast corner is cut away to conform to zoning regulations.


The irregular structural pattern is intended to bear the strains of the tower’s contortions. Mr. Nouvel echoes the pattern of crisscrossing beams on the building’s facade, giving the skin a taut, muscular look. A secondary system of mullions housing the ventilation system adds richness to the facade.


Mr. Nouvel anchors these soaring forms in Manhattan bedrock. The restaurant and lounge are submerged one level below ground, with the top sheathed entirely in glass so that pedestrians can peer downward into the belly of the building. A bridge on one side of the lobby links the 53rd and 54th Street entrances. Big concrete columns crisscross the spaces, their tilted forms rooting the structure deep into the ground.


As you ascend through the building, the floor plates shrink in size, which should give the upper stories an increasingly precarious feel. The top-floor apartment is arranged around such a massive elevator core that its inhabitants will feel pressed up against the glass exterior walls. (Mr. Nouvel compared the apartment to the pied-à-terre at the top of the Eiffel Tower from which Gustave Eiffel used to survey his handiwork below.)


The building’s brash forms are a sly commentary on the rationalist geometries of Edward Durell Stone and Philip L. Goodwin’s 1939 building for the Museum of Modern Art and Yoshio Taniguchi’s 2004 addition. Like many contemporary architects Mr. Nouvel sees the modern grid as confining and dogmatic. His tower’s contorted forms are a scream for freedom.


And what of the Modern? For some, the appearance of yet another luxury tower stamped with the museum’s imprimatur will induce wincing. But the more immediate issue is how it will affect the organization of the Modern’s vast collections.


The museum is only now beginning to come to grips with the strengths and weaknesses of Mr. Taniguchi’s addition. Many feel that the arrangement of the fourth- and fifth-floor galleries housing the permanent collection is confusing, and that the double-height second-floor galleries for contemporary art are too unwieldy. The architecture galleries, by comparison, are small and inflexible. There is no room for the medium-size exhibitions that were a staple of the architecture and design department in its heyday.


The additional gallery space is a chance for MoMA to rethink many of these spaces, by reordering the sequence of its permanent collection, for example, or considering how it might resituate the contemporary galleries in the new tower and gain more space for architecture shows in the old.


But to embark on such an ambitious undertaking the museum would first have to acknowledge that its Taniguchi-designed complex has posed new challenges. In short, it would have to embrace a fearlessness that it hasn’t shown in decades.


MoMA would do well to take a cue from Ruskin, who wrote that great art, whether expressed in “words, colors or stones, does not say the same thing over and over again.”

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tianjin World Financial Center




76 floors, something that would stand out in the Montreal skyline, but it's not too tall for our city. Just right in my view!


Architecturely, it's modern and sharp looking but not too crazy; it would fit pretty well with Montreal.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are we talking about 76 floors of residential/hotel or office floors?


I know that the Nouvel building at the MoMA in NYC will be approx the same height as the Chrysler building, approx. 280-290 meters.


That might be too tall for Montreal, but a scaled down version of the same thing with 65 floors and 250 meters would fit perfectly! Even though the tower would exceed Mont-Royal, it's tapered upper floors would make it less bulky and cumbersome and would appear to "hide" less of the "mountain".


The same applies to the Tianjin World Financial Center!

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Are we talking about 76 floors of residential/hotel or office floors?


I know that the Nouvel building at the MoMA in NYC will be approx the same height as the Chrysler building, approx. 280-290 meters.


That might be too tall for Montreal, but a scaled down version of the same thing with 65 floors and 250 meters would fit perfectly! Even though the tower would exceed Mont-Royal, it's tapered upper floors would make it less bulky and cumbersome and would appear to "hide" less of the "mountain".


The same applies to the Tianjin World Financial Center!


Haha, well i am a little insane when it comes to skyscrapers, so maybe 76 office floors is pushing it, but you get the idea. Scale it down slightly to 60-65.


Still, Montreal has a collection of towers at, or nearing, 200m. We need one in the 230-260m range to break from the pack!

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's officially called Tour de Verre. And it is indefinitely put on hold. Though it was approved, it faced SERIOUS opposition from NIMBY's for its height believe it or not.


This is exactly the kind of tall tower Montreal could accommodate - the top portion, 10 floors or more, is part of the structure as a mast. It is very creative in reaching its height.


The lot is TINY. Cathcart at University??

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

habsfan... le building dont tu parles n'est ni en construction ni complété. En fait, il ne sera probablement jamais construit, ou pas avant très longtemps.


Ce dont tu parles restera probablement toujours dans la catégorie 'Visions'.


De plus, de nombreux NYMBYs ont chialé contre ce projet situé dans un secteur relativement peu dense de NY.


Quote from the NY Times


It Was Fun Till the Money Ran Out



December 19, 2008


Now that high-end bubble has popped, and it is unlikely to return anytime soon. Jean Nouvel’s 75-story residential tower adjoining the Museum of Modern Art has been delayed indefinitely. And developers now seem loath to undertake similar projects. Even if the economy turns around, the public’s tolerance for outsize architectural statements that serve the rich and self-absorbed has already been pretty much exhausted.


This is not all good news. A lot of wonderful architecture is being thrown out with the bad. Although most of Mr. Nouvel’s MoMA tower would have been devoted to luxury apartments, for instance, it would have allowed the museum next door to expand its gallery space significantly. It would also have been one of the most spectacular additions to the Manhattan skyline since the Chrysler Building.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

New-York avec Chicago sont les villes qui ont littéralement inventé le gratte-ciel. Ceux-çi ont toujours été audacieux. Parfois de façon tout à fait génial (Woolworth, Chrysler) ou parfois moins (AT&T -aujourd'hui Sony avec son couronnement Chippendale :eek:) mais chose certaine toujours audacieusement.

Aucun des gratte-ciel de Montréal n'est profondémment remarquable -à part le 1250 René-Lévesque qui se permet un tout petit peu de fantaisie. Il serait temps que les commanditaires montréalais sortent de leur timidité.

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.

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.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Similar Content

    • By denpanosekai
      This beautiful 1911 building has been under renovation for a year, transforming its 3 top floors into luxurious rental apartments (entrance at 1405 Bishop). The project is called "Bishop Lofts" although these seem like regular apartments.
      Buffalo Jeans will occupy most of the ground floor retail space, with a Mochico shoe store as neighbor.

    • By ScarletCoral
      L’urgence climatique et la crise de l’architecture
      Antoine Mathys
      Architecte à L’Abri
      7 mars 2019
      Il ne passe plus une journée sans que les médias nous parlent d’urgence climatique ou de crise du réchauffement climatique, au point que ces mots semblent se vider de leur sens. C’est vrai, dans le fond, que ça fait bien au moins 50 ans qu’on en parle… Le problème, il me semble, est que ces mots ne s’inscrivent dans aucun récit qui fasse sens pour nous. Mais quel est le rôle de l’architecture dans cette crise ? Que dit-on à travers nos constructions qui représentent 46,8 milliards de dollars d’investissements au Québec ? Pour la majorité des gens, l’architecture s’est en grande partie enfermée dans une tour d’ivoire et ne semble plus être qu’un vaste cabinet de curiosités, où tout se vaut plus ou moins et se fond dans le tissu urbain. Au-delà de l’indifférence, une méfiance envers les architectes semble s’être développée dans certains milieux. La crise climatique est l’occasion de remettre notre rôle en question.
      Selon l’écrasant consensus scientifique relayé par le Pacte pour la transition, « il est technologiquement, humainement et économiquement possible de limiter le réchauffement de la planète. La solution passe par la volonté politique ». Or le gouvernement Couillard avait fixé comme objectif de parvenir à une réduction de 20 % des émissions de GES en 2020 et de 37,5 % en 2030, même si en 2016 ces émissions n’avaient reculé que de 9,1 % par rapport à celles de 1990. Et dire que le secteur du bâtiment au Québec représente 30 % de la consommation totale d’énergie et 12 % des émissions de GES ! Bien sûr, les architectes ne sont pas les uniques responsables de ce bilan, mais ne sommes-nous pas parmi les mieux placés pour voir à la réhabilitation du bâti existant et à ce que les nouvelles constructions contribuent à nos ambitions collectives en matière de lutte contre les changements climatiques ?
      Il est temps pour l’architecture d’entrer dans le XXIe siècle. Il est temps pour les architectes de se responsabiliser, et d’enfin travailler de concert avec les donneurs d’ouvrage, les ingénieurs, les universitaires, les constructeurs, les groupes communautaires et les citoyens usagers pour tenter de répondre de manière adéquate à l’urgence climatique. Aujourd’hui, plus que jamais, nous comprenons qu’un bâtiment n’est qu’une interface, une zone d’échanges que nous devons mieux contrôler pour protéger les écosystèmes naturels et humains dans lequel il s’intègre. Nous pensons encore nos bâtiments comme autant de petites frontières avec le monde, gagnées à grands coups de défrichage et d’extraction, au prix d’un immense gaspillage.
      Le plan d’action fédéral en matière de lutte contre les changements climatiques prévoit l’adoption d’un code énergétique, avec un objectif « prêt à la consommation énergétique nette zéro » pour les bâtiments neufs d’ici 2030, et l’atteinte de la carboneutralité d’ici 2050. Parallèlement, on entend souvent dire dans les cercles de construction que notre label écoénergétique québécois Novoclimat est le prochain code et que nous devrions tous minimalement construire selon ce programme. Le hic, c’est que le prochain code, c’est demain ! Littéralement l’année prochaine. Est-ce réaliste de penser atteindre notre objectif de carboneutralité avec de si faibles mesures ? Peut-on réellement se contenter de construire en faisant (un peu) moins (de) mal qu’un bâtiment construit selon le code actuel ?
      Une nouvelle génération d’architectes préconise une approche intégrée à la conception architecturale qui ne peut être sortie du contexte de l’horizon de la carboneutralité. Et cette approche a déjà près de trente ans ! C’est le label d’efficacité énergétique international bâtiment passif. Il représente ce qui se fait de mieux pour l’atteinte d’une réelle efficacité énergétique, unique voie responsable vers des bâtiments à consommation « nette zéro ». La beauté de la norme passive est qu’elle commande des réponses hautement créatives et s’appuie sur une approche collaborative de la conception à la réalisation.
      Même les détracteurs de l’adoption du standard passif au Québec admettent que les surcoûts liés à ce type de constructions diminuent radicalement dès la deuxième itération, passant de 30 % à parfois 15, voire 10 % de surcoûts par rapport à une construction standard. Faire les choses la première fois et à petite échelle va toujours coûter plus cher, mais ce n’est pas une raison pour jeter l’éponge ! Dans le domaine de la construction, comme dans les autres secteurs clés de l’économie — l’énergie, les transports, l’agriculture —, les « petits pas » sont non seulement inutiles, mais carrément contre-productifs.
      Des dizaines de bâtiments passifs ont déjà été construits au Québec, dont deux sont certifiés. Nous nous devons aujourd’hui de rénover et de construire enfin à la mesure de nos connaissances si nous voulons avoir la moindre chance de dévier de notre trajectoire suicidaire. Construire mieux, c’est aussi innover dans notre manière de vivre — toujours chercher à tisser des liens plus riches entre l’humain et son environnement, et inventer des formes nouvelles de cohabitation. N’est-ce pas précisément le rôle que devrait jouer l’architecte dans la société ? L’adoption à grande échelle de la norme passive est l’occasion pour l’architecture de reprendre sa place parmi les grands enjeux de société et de sortir enfin la création architecturale de sa tour d’ivoire pour l’ancrer dans l’urgence de notre époque.
      Chronique de Marc-André Carignan à ce sujet

      À quand des bâtiments écologiques (pour vrai)?
      Le chroniqueur et architecte Marc-André Carignan se demande quand le Québec prendra un véritable virage écologique dans son secteur immobilier. Il déplore que l'on parle beaucoup d'environnement dans le milieu du bâtiment, mais que peu de gestes concrets soient posés.
      Depuis les dernières années, on voit de plus en plus de projets à caractère écologique, observe Marc-André Carignan. Mais en réalité, souvent, ce n’est qu’un vernis, soutient-il.
      Il précise que moins de 5 % des bâtiments sont certifiés écologiques au Québec.
      Le chroniqueur déplore que l'environnement soit trop souvent mis de côté au moment de concevoir un projet architectural. Il donne l’exemple de la place Ville-Marie, à Montréal, qui a annoncé l’aménagement d’une toute nouvelle aire de restauration dotée d’un toit en verre, sans prendre en considération les pertes de chaleur que cela va engendrer. J’ai même parlé à des architectes qui ont travaillé sur ce projet qui m’ont dit qu’ils étaient gênés de présenter ça au public, mais que c’était ce que leur client voulait, raconte-t-il.
      Marc-André Carignan fait remarquer que les obstacles sont nombreux à l’adoption de techniques de construction plus écologiques. Non seulement il est toujours difficile de changer les habitudes dans ce milieu, puisque le changement représente un risque, mais certains promoteurs craignent aussi de se lancer dans la construction verte, car ils n’ont pas d’expertise dans ce domaine. Marc-André Carignan s’est d’ailleurs fait dire par un promoteur que son premier projet certifié LEED l’avait plongé dans le rouge.
      Le chroniqueur mentionne que les bâtiments écologiques coûtent entre 10 % et 12 % de plus à construire, mais qu'il est généralement possible de rentabiliser cet investissement à long terme grâce aux économies d’énergie.
      Dans le secteur public, comme les écoles, on devrait assumer ce coût supplémentaire parce qu’on n’a pas la pression d’entrer tout de suite dans notre investissement, pense Marc-André Carignan.
      Il insiste sur le fait que pour entreprendre un véritable virage, tout le monde doit revoir son approche : les architectes, les clients, les promoteurs, mais aussi le gouvernement, qui peut élever les standards du code du bâtiment.
    • By elie
      Hi, I'm trying to find information about the patrimonial buildings of ''New City Gas of Montreal'' located inside Ottawa, Ann, Dalhousie and Wellington streets.
      Will there be any construction in the future?
      How high can the build?
      Any plans already available?
      Thank you for any info you might have!
    • By IluvMTL
      Tim Keane to Atlanta: No more ugly buildings; focus on quality design
      December 17, 2018, 3:40 pm/24 Comments   By Maria Saporta
      When it comes to urban design, it’s a new day for Atlanta.
      Atlanta’s Planning Commissioner Tim Keane wants our developers and architects to step up their game. And he’s willing to hold up their projects if they don’t live up to higher quality design standards.
      Planners Tim Keane and Terri Lee look over the watercolor depiction of how Atlanta can grow and retain its beauty (Photo by Maria Saporta)
      Already the developers of three high profile projects have revised their plans to accommodate the city by improving the plans for their developments.
      For Keane, this is not a job; it’s a mission to create greater awareness of the importance of quality design on our urban environment.
      “People in Atlanta don’t value design,” Keane said in a recent interview. “It’s a huge problem. I feel like people here think design is frivolous. But it is fundamental to making a better life for people.”
      Keane moved to Atlanta nearly three years ago after serving as the planning commissioner for the City of Charleston, S.C.
      “It was a big change for me coming from Charleston where design was seen as contributing to a better life for residents. We cared about every detail,” Keane said. “In Charleston, there was a three-step design review process to get a building approved. It was too much. Charleston was so over the top, but Atlanta is on the opposite end of the spectrum.”
      So Keane is changing Atlanta’s laissez-faire approach and emerged as a good cop (or bad cop) insisting on quality design for projects that land on his desk.
      “I have started to say: ‘You can’t build that. You can’t build insulting buildings in Atlanta anymore,’” Keane said. “This is not about architecture and architectural awards. It is more how architecture contributes to a better public realm.”
      Initial design for the 445 Marietta St. building (Special: City of Atlanta)
      The revised design for a building at 445 Marietta St. Notice how the building incorporates an historic building in the lower right corner (Special: City of Atlanta)
      It is his attempt to stop the development of “Mr. Potatohead” buildings – structures where architects add different design features to try to make an ugly building better. Keane would rather architects start out with a simple building design with high quality materials and amenities.
      As the law currently stands, the city of Atlanta would have a hard time enforcing a design standard. And Keane acknowledges the city is not authorized to mandate good design. But he has told developers that the city won’t approve a project unless they change the architecture. Developers could take the city to court, but that would cost time and money.
      So far, developers have been willing to work with the city to redesign their buildings in order to get the project moving. Eventually, Keane hopes developers will know to incorporate quality design principles before they bring their proposals to the city.
      “The main point is that design is not a frivolous endeavor,” Keane said. “It is integral to a city’s development.”
      Keane did acknowledge that quality design can be in the eyes of the beholder – and he is not advocating for classical or modern design.
      “We are going to be advocates for a better public realm,” Keane said. “It’s how a building meets the street. It has to have good proportions with quality materials. It should have a balanced window to wall ratio that fit in with the overall composition of the building.
      “Everything has to be done well – designed well – no matter what your style is,” Keane said. “I’m interested in contemporary architecture, but it has to achieve the basics of good design in order to be built.”
      One area where Keane does not have a lot of room for compromise is historic preservation.
      “I think Atlanta has enough old buildings that if we save them, we still have enough fabric to build around them and make a distinct city,” Keane said. “What we are struggling with is the quality of the new buildings that fall around the historic buildings.  So far we haven’t been able to build to consistent design quality buildings that stand up to the test of time.”
      640 Peachtree St. – initial design for the hotel at the important Ponce de Leon Avenue intersection (Special: City of Atlanta)
      Revised design for 640 Peachtree St. hotel project (Special: the City of Atlanta)
      Historically, Atlanta has let zoning laws regulate urban development (the city has been revamping its zoning ordinances with several new rules passing the Zoning Review Board on Dec. 13).
      “This is about the city taking responsibility or the quality of architecture in Atlanta. The city has relied on zoning, but zoning doesn’t make good buildings,” Keane said “Only design can do that.”
      The city has started having internal discussions about developing a design process that will lead to better architecture. It is working on how best to involve the Atlanta Urban Design Commission as well as the development review committees within certain community improvement areas. Keane said he hopes to have a new process adopted within the next year.
      “All of that needs to be up for refinement,” Keane said. “The saving of old buildings is job No. 1. We can never replicate the design of our old buildings.”
      So far, Keane has been a successful good design cop – especially with the three developments where he was able to influence the ultimate design.
      “In every one of these cases, the developers have been thrilled with the process,” Keane said. “What they got was so much better.”
      It’s only been a little more than three years since Keane came to Atlanta – and he can best be described as a change agent. He worked with Ryan Gravel to have the city adopt the Atlanta City Design Project – which outlined ways the city could increase its population while improving its quality of life. He has been working on a host of institutional changes – the zoning ordinance, a new tree ordinance, an urban ecology framework plan, a more pedestrian-oriented transportation plan and now better design standards.
      In Keane’s mind, we can’t look at the city in silos. We need to integrate all the various urban amenities so they create a balanced, equitable city that respects our unique history and location.
      That includes affordability, transit, accessibility, quality design, historic preservation, protection of high value trees as well as making sure residents have ample opportunities to be involved in the evolution of Atlanta.
      524 West Peachtree at Baltimore Row. The image shows the initial plans on the left and the revised design on the right (Special: City of Atlanta)
      This is one of my favorite examples of a modern building respecting the historic fabric of its neighbor:
      Photo shows the addition to the Boston Public Library that opened in 1972. The addition was designed by architect Philip Johnson, who used design motifs from the historic library (Special: Boston Library)
    • By ScarletCoral
      J'ai cru rêvé en entendant la présidente de la CSDM Catherie Harel-Bourdon dire qu'elle allait présenter une résolution ce soir au conseil des commissaires pour permettre des concours d'architecture dans la construction et l'agrandissement des écoles!! ?
      Elle était en entrevue avec Annie Desrochers cet arpès-midi à ce sujet :
      Résolution de la CSDM pour permettre des concours d'architecture pour les écoles
      L'architecture Pierre Thibault a souvent dit que son rêve était de construire une école, mais qu'il ne pouvait parce qu'il en avait jamais fait avant..
      Cet article du Journal de Montréal a bien résumé ses propos recueillis lors d'une entrevue avec Infoman :
      « La question qu’Infoman a posée à Pierre Thibault : À quand une école construite par lui au Québec? Sa réponse : « Cela est Impossible parce que pour avoir le droit de construire une école, il faut déjà en avoir construit une avant. » Et vous savez quoi, une école construite d’après des dessins d’architecte ne coute que 1% plus cher. »