ville-marie Square Dorchester et Place du Canada: réaménagement

[gars du new jersey]

Is it a shithole? I wouldn't say that. But it certainly isn't a city Montreal should envy.

 

Though the areas around European train stations are always pretty seedy, the neighborhood around the Hauptbahnhof in Frankfurt (toe to toe with downtown) is pretty horrible for a city that should be the emblem of Teutonic efficiency and what not. Germany is lucky to have a constellation of world-beating cities; Frankfurt is definitely not among them. It really cannot suck enough.

 

Au sujet du square Dorchester, la parterre de fleurs rouges autour du monument est vraiment belle. Quelqu'un a remarqué les petites croix en pavés?

Modifié 23 juin 2010 par gars du new jersey

[Cataclaw]

Go and bicker about the precise number 200m+ buildings. I still don't see how this qualifies as a skyscraper boom.

 

I guess you missed the part where i outlined 10+ skyscrapers of 150-200m+ currently under construction or approved

Modifié 23 juin 2010 par Cataclaw

[pedepy]

? damnit i had a beautiful response all typed out yesterday and i suppose i forgot to send it ..

 

anyway, saturnus, the cities you picked are really bad examples. they're historic, centuries old cities packed with beautiful architecture that would be a sin to destroy. say old montreal style architecture covered most of the island, we probably wouldn't have built anything very tall either - not in the city centre anyway. the same goes for those europeen cities - and notice that wherever they do find room to build up, they do.

 

i always said they should dismantle the tour montparnasse and rebuild it on rene-levesque ! ... at it's current location, it just looks like a joke !

 

 

montreal's real club should be boston, philly, toronto, miami, etc .... those cities are of comparable size and influence, and most of them have had more, taller buildings proposed and built in recent years - with plenty more under way for the near future.

 

just have a look at wikipedia's list of tallest buildings for those cities, and then montreal's. you'll notice that, in this list of buildings that are at least 120 to 140 meter's high, all of these cities have at least three to five listings that are tagged to have been built after 2000.

 

in montreal's list of tallest constructed above 120m, not only does it not have one single listing that is after 2000, the newest to date to make the list are from 1992.. .. that is very telling.

 

in other words, nothing of significant height as been built here in quite some time ! .. and those lists are there to proove it!

Modifié 23 juin 2010 par pedepy

[Cataclaw]

Skyscraper construction is booming on every continent. To keep pace with the rest of the world, Montreal would have to build, every year:

 

1x 200m tower (or+)

2x 140m tower

4x 100m tower

10x 70-90m towers

 

This year we've had (or are scheduled to complete)

1x 98m tower

1x 85m tower

1x 54m tower

 

Montreal compensates by building a high number of 3-to-8 storey buildings, but we've still got a tendency to grow horizontally rather than vertically. Higher isn't always better, but when you've got an expensive infrastructure in place designed to accomodate a certain density, it's imperative that we get a certain height with new constructions to make it worthwhile having that infrastructure.

 

Building the metro downtown was very expensive.. what a waste to build tiny buildings along it!

 

All empty lots within 500m of a metro station ought to be zoned 80m minimum; and,

All empty lots within 250m of a metro station ought to be zoned 160m minimum.

Modifié 24 juin 2010 par Cataclaw

[Cyrus]

But wouldn't that conflict with the existing "never over the mountain" regulations?

 

I'm not sure the metro infrastructure is sufficient, I mean when you ride the metro in the morning people are really crammed in there...

[Cataclaw]

The mountain is over 200m high, there would be no problem.

 

We already have a skyscraper at 200m+, the 1000 de la Gauchetière (and the IBM tower if you count the antenna)

[saturnus85]

All empty lots within 500m of a metro station ought to be zoned 80m minimum; and,

All empty lots within 250m of a metro station ought to be zoned 160m minimum.

 

Ha, because mandating minimum heights will mean that demand will magically materialize... Some people just live in a fantasy world.

 

Anyway, I don't mean to burst your bubble, but you play Sim City way too much.

[Cyrus]

The mountain is over 200m high, there would be no problem.

 

We already have a skyscraper at 200m+, the 1000 de la Gauchetière (and the IBM tower if you count the antenna)

 

But 1000 de la Gauchetiere is built on a hole because of the topography of the area

 

The other question, or really the biggest question is profitability... office space is not very expensive in downtown Mtl, and the city centre isn't growing... can't afford to build a Burj when there are no interested tenants...

[Cataclaw]

Ha, because mandating minimum heights will mean that demand will magically materialize... Some people just live in a fantasy world.

 

Anyway, I don't mean to burst your bubble, but you play Sim City way too much.

 

Swiiiiiing aaaand a miss.

 

Nobody ever suggested demand would materialize. That isn't the point. That isn't even close to the point.

The point is: in order to optimize use of expensive infrastructure, it's worthwhile to build high and build dense.

If a developer wants to build 3 towers of 13 floors each, he's going to have to build one tower of 40 floors instead in order to meet the height/density requirements set in place to optimize the use of local infrastructure.

Modifié 24 juin 2010 par Cataclaw

[Cataclaw]

But 1000 de la Gauchetiere is built on a hole because of the topography of the area

 

The other question, or really the biggest question is profitability... office space is not very expensive in downtown Mtl, and the city centre isn't growing... can't afford to build a Burj when there are no interested tenants...

 

Who said anything about office space? Condo sales are doing quite well. Mixed-use towers are the way to go. (Retail, office, hotel, residential all in one)