Future Canadian Skylines

[Robertpuant]

Montreal's skyline is going for a Boston/SF look. Tightly packed, not too extensive, good mixe of colors and texures, many 500' footers forming a tabletop.

[Martin Mtl]

Of course architecture is a very important element of any urbanist's work. I never said the contrary. What I'm saying is that height is not important, at all, to the quality of the urban fabric of a city.

Obviously, if you find Toronto more appealing than Montreal at street level because of the scale of its buildings, there's nothing more to add. You like height and its your right.

My favorite downtown Toronto neighborhood is Ste-Lawrence, because it has that midrises density that I prefer. It always comes down to a matter of personal preferences. And in Toronto, the quality of the architecture if much higher in midrises than in highrises, in my opinion.

I guess what irritates me sometimes with the height obsession is that it often height is used as a standard to determine how good a city is. Like, it's often implied on this forum that if Toronto doesn't build a supertall during this boom it will make it a big looser on the city world stage. I simply don't get that.

[Maldive]

Originally Posted by Martin Mtl

Of course architecture is a very important element of any urbanist's work. I never said the contrary. What I'm saying is that height is not important, at all, to the quality of the urban fabric of a city.

Obviously, if you find Toronto more appealing than Montreal at street level because of the scale of its buildings, there's nothing more to add. You like height and its your right.

My favorite downtown Toronto neighborhood is Ste-Lawrence, because it has that midrises density that I prefer. It always comes down to a matter of personal preferences. And in Toronto, the quality of the architecture if much higher in midrises than in highrises, in my opinion.

I guess what irritates me sometimes with the height obsession is that it often height is used as a standard to determine how good a city is. Like, it's often implied on this forum that if Toronto doesn't build a supertall during this boom it will make it a big looser on the city world stage. I simply don't get that.

Hi Martin:

I've not responded to your posts for years because any T.O vs. Montreal is a constitutional no go.

But.

This latest round of voices screaming height is indeed ridiculous, despite the mind-blowing propositions being put forward for the city recently.

Toronto enjoyed the world's tallest thingabob for 3 decades and the newly reburbished (but "ancient") BMO tower which was the tallest building in the world outside of NYC and Chicago when completed (and a few tantalizing feet short of a "supertall" crown)... remains the tallest in the country.

Thing is... Toronto is an extraordinary city that has embraced the world and evolved "in spite" of its leadership.

The neighbourhoods and the home grown ingenuity would truly blow your mind if explored.

But maybe that's too much for a Montrealer to take.

P.S. Love Montreal. Time to drop the decades "rival" stereotyping of Hogtown. Together we grow.

[Martin Mtl]

Originally Posted by Maldive

Hi Martin:

I've not responded to your posts for years because any T.O vs. Montreal is a constitutional no go.

But.

This latest round of voices screaming height is indeed ridiculous, despite the mind-blowing propositions being put forward for the city recently.

Toronto enjoyed the world's tallest thingabob for 3 decades and the newly reburbished (but "ancient") BMO tower which was the tallest building in the world outside of NYC and Chicago when completed (and a few tantalizing feet short of a "supertall" crown)... remains the tallest in the country.

Thing is... Toronto is an extraordinary city that has embraced the world and evolved "in spite" of its leadership.

The neighbourhoods and the home grown ingenuity would truly blow your mind if explored.

But maybe that's too much for a Montrealer to take.

P.S. Love Montreal. Time to drop the decades "rival" stereotyping of Hogtown. Together we grow.

Why do I have the impression that you think my post was against Toronto ? It never was. I was just saying that sometimes I find the height obsession too much on this forum and that great cities are not define by the number of supertalls they have. In fact, I was saying that Toronto has some great midrises architecture and that I love Ste-Lawrence. Only positive. But you did manage to be condescending about me being a Montrealer, though.

Why do you implied that I don't know Toronto's neighbourhoods ? I don't get your post. Sorry.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Martin Mtl

Of course architecture is a very important element of any urbanist's work. I never said the contrary. What I'm saying is that height is not important, at all, to the quality of the urban fabric of a city.

In that we will indeed have to disagree. Height is of major importance to the quality of the urban fabric just like all the other dimensions such as width and depth, and dimensional details like block sizes, streetwalls, etc. It impacts a city's sightlines, focal points, sense of intimacy, scale and overall grandeur. It obviously isn't the only thing that's important and a city can have a strong urban fabric without it, but it's definitely important. Much more so obviously in a North American-style city that's laid out surrounding a highrise central district than in a European style city that has a broad sweeping low/mid rise central area.

[Rico Rommheim]

Originally Posted by Martin Mtl

Why do I have the impression that you think my post was against Toronto ? It never was. I was just saying that sometimes I find the height obsession too much on this forum and that great cities are not define by the number of supertalls they have. In fact, I was saying that Toronto has some great midrises architecture and that I love Ste-Lawrence. Only positive. But you did manage to be condescending about me being a Montrealer, though.

Why do you implied that I don't know Toronto's neighbourhoods ? I don't get your post. Sorry.

Ha, I was wondering that too, what a perplexing post by maldive, really out of nowhere.

[Martin Mtl]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Much more so obviously in a North American-style city that's laid out surrounding a highrise central district than in a European style city that has a broad sweeping low/mid rise central area.

I think those standards are changing fast. London, Paris, Moscow, Frankfurt, even Vienna are all going "high rises" in pockets, like little (or not that little in some cases - like the London's City) high-rise central district, the N. American way.

I would like the reverse to also happened; to see north american cities embrace the mid-rise standard more. St.Lawrence in Toronto is a great exemple. In fact, it's my favorite neighbourhood in Toronto and I wish we had something like that here in Montreal.

We have so much surface parking lots in Montreal and Toronto as well... plus all those shabby one or two storey buildings that we could replace with 8-10 storeys buildings, making great street walls, just like they do in Europe. There is no reason for not trying, at this point in history, to mix things up. It's that reasoning that makes wish we would not obsess so much, all the time, about super height or supertalls.

Honestly, I love a big, giant tower as much as you. But I feel we are limiting ourself if we start thinking that not being very tall means being a looser.

Of course, being a Montrealer makes me sensitive about those things, because here we have strict height's limits. We will never have supertalls in Montreal.
We can't even break the 200 meters. But if we can get rid of those ugly surface parking lots only with 10-20 storeys buildings, so be it. It's more important than having a big one.

But we'd also like a big one.

[Nouvellecosse]

Not sure where you're getting this idea that I'm somehow a "height" person. I'm a "let's improve on the weak areas" person. If a city has lots of parking lots that need to be filled but has lots of tall buildings (Houston, Dallas, Atlanta) then I'm going to address the issues at ground level and not even mention height. Likewise, in a city with charming urban fabric but fewer impressive, taller buildings, then it's the latter I'd focus on improving. In Montreal's case, neither aspect is "bad" but both could use improvement. But with this being a future's skylines thread that's where I was focusing.

Overall, I don't think I'd want to see a super tall in Montreal, It would be nice if they'd allow one building around 250m and a few 200m "ish" ones further east and west. But otherwise, lower infill would be sufficient.

Although I'd also like to see a few landmark highrises outside downtown. Maybe one in the 160m range and a couple more in the 120m range in a node around Parc Extension and a few similar in Anjou would be cool.

[le calmar]

Originally Posted by Maldive

Hi Martin:

I've not responded to your posts for years because any T.O vs. Montreal is a constitutional no go.

But.

This latest round of voices screaming height is indeed ridiculous, despite the mind-blowing propositions being put forward for the city recently.

Toronto enjoyed the world's tallest thingabob for 3 decades and the newly reburbished (but "ancient") BMO tower which was the tallest building in the world outside of NYC and Chicago when completed (and a few tantalizing feet short of a "supertall" crown)... remains the tallest in the country.

Thing is... Toronto is an extraordinary city that has embraced the world and evolved "in spite" of its leadership.

The neighbourhoods and the home grown ingenuity would truly blow your mind if explored.

But maybe that's too much for a Montrealer to take.

P.S. Love Montreal. Time to drop the decades "rival" stereotyping of Hogtown. Together we grow.

I've been reading Martin for years too and I'm pretty sure he is not the Gibbroni type, aka "Montreal is better than Toronto". I think you have the wrong target here.

[leftimage]

Originally Posted by Maldive

The neighbourhoods and the home grown ingenuity would truly blow your mind if explored.

But maybe that's too much for a Montrealer to take.

P.S. Love Montreal.

Your post seemed relatively on target til this part

No wonder you stay away from Toronto-Montreal rivalry discussions.

Toronto has some good neighborhoods. To call any one them mind-blowing would be a bit of a stretch.

[KnoxfordGuy]

Originally Posted by ih8pickingusernames

^ Can't believe I missed that. Thanks for making me feel like an idiot!

Sorry that I sounded like such a douche

[lake of the nations]

Montréal


Original picture by Serge Lacasse

[Rico Rommheim]

^Fantastic!

Missing from this future render: about 12 Griffintown towers ranging from 15-20 floors (They would have a great impact in the lower-left side) the QDS tower (which would poke out slightly behind Le V), Univers Condos (which would make a quite an impression tucked in between the Delta and Tour de la Bourse) and the Square Philips office tower proposal, which would close the gap between Altitude and Point Zero, I'm guessing probably behind where the huge red and white pylon is.

Can't wait until we get renders of the TDC II and CF's second office proposal.

[FrAnKs]

Fantastic indeed !

Excuse me, what is the ''CF second office tower ?''

[Rico Rommheim]

Pardon me for the ambiguity,

Cadillac-fairview (CF) is planning a second phase of Tour des canadiens (TDS) and a second office tower across the street from the first one, which is the Deloitte tower.

[FrAnKs]

Originally Posted by Rico Rommheim

Pardon me for the ambiguity,

Cadillac-fairview (CF) is planning a second phase of Tour des canadiens (TDS) and a second office tower across the street from the first one, which is the Deloitte tower.

Nice !! .... it will extend downtown by the south ! ... and will make a link with griffintown.

Even by now, Montreal's downtown is probably more densely populated than any other american cities of a same size.

Merci Rico.

[Rico Rommheim]

Indeed, the griffintown redevelopment and the massive, decade-long plans that Cadillac-fairview has for the lands south of St-Antoine will extend "downtown" southwards by 6 blocks (some are super-sized blocks). It's going to be very impressive.

[FrAnKs]

You said it,

it's a long term development.

I'm afraid about the bubble. The sales are good for most of the projects in Montreal...for the moment. Cross fingers.

Oh by the way, what do you think will happen to that building : http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=fr&ll=...33.14,,0,-18.9
...I bet they will keep trying to save it.
It's right in the area you mentionned.

Am I the only one who think we can do something awesome with it ?
(I'm not even sure at the moment if it's abandonned or something ... )

[Rico Rommheim]

That building is awesome, and very underrated. And worry not, it is not abandoned or threatened. Before Canadian Pacific went on a rampage and tore down the neighbourhood south of St-Antoine, this part of town used to be full of buildings such as this one. As one of the last ones standing, it will surely not be going anywhere anytime soon.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ontreal_04.jpg

By the way, that building was built in 1935 as the central post office of Montreal. It is now used by Federal government agencies.

Am I the only one who think we can do something awesome with it ?

Absolutely not, I also think that if it came to that, this building could be a great podium for a future development, like a massive tower. Who knows what the future holds, as this part of downtown becomes re-intergrated into the urban fabric, land values are going to rise and older buildings are going to have to adapt, or go. But that's in a few decades from now.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by RyeJay

There are some in Halifax that believe building height needs to be strictly controlled

I think a good starting point is the assumption that urban neighbourhoods need a certain level of density to work properly. There has to be balance in terms of creating demand to keep commercial areas busy, keep school open, etc. When there isn't a balance people can't get the services they want in their neighbourhood. In Halifax, the North End is an example of a neighbourhood that lost a huge amount of density (Gottingen went from 13,000 people to 6,000 from 1960-1990) and then ceased to work properly. Stores closed down, schools closed down, crime went up.

With a clean slate it would be possible to plan out a dense neighbourhood with only 4-8 storey buildings. In a city like Halifax however (and most North American cities) a huge percentage of land is off-limits because it has heritage buildings, height restrictions to preserve views, public open space, or protected single family dwelling neighbourhoods. The density of a neighbourhood might be only 25% under what is needed, but it is impossible to add 25% capacity to each individual lot. It is more practical to add new density in specific land use areas, like underused commercial corridors, that may only account for maybe 7% of the total land area. This is where taller buildings come in as a practical solution.

Another related issue is that people have a habit of debating building heights. The debate is framed as a debate over height in one location (10 vs. 20 floors) when in reality the question is how to add a certain amount of density. The dilemma isn't one of building 10 or 20 floors on one site, it's a question of putting a 20 storey tower in the neighbourhood vs. two 10 storey buildings vs. having eroded neighbourhood services and depressed property values.