Height restriction

[SkahHigh]

Here is my question: do you think the height restriction in Montreal (no higher than the Mount Royal) should be banned or not?

[lake of the nations]

My answer would be yes, BUT the affected lots should not be left without any other restriction. The most central ones could get something like a 250-300-meter-high limit (anyway, 300 meters won't probably be reached in a foreseable future), while others (those south of Saint-Antoine, for example) should be kept at ~200m. Moreover, I would push some of the 120m height restrictions to ~150.

[SkahHigh]

Originally Posted by lake of the nations

My answer would be yes, BUT the affected lots should not be left without any other restriction. The most central ones could get something like a 250-300-meter-high limit (anyway, 300 meters won't probably be reached in a foreseable future), while others (those south of Saint-Antoine, for example) should be kept at ~200m. Moreover, I would push some of the 120m height restrictions to ~150.

Yes, height restrictions in certains areas should not be completely removed, but there shouldn't be any maximum height for buildings in central Downtown I believe.

[Rico Rommheim]

The height limit would have sucked if it were in Toronto, or Calgary. But as of now, no promoter or developer has ever proposed to build a tower matching or exceeding this height limit.

What bugs me though are the stupid height limits on the north-south corridors (like crescent, Stanley, mackay) which are a laughable 35m. Also, the western and eastern edges of Rene-levesque should allow for more than 10 floors. If I had it my way every new construction on Rene-levesque between St-mathieu and papineau should have MINIMUM standard of 80m.

Every lot between basin peel and st-Antoine should allow for up to 250m.

[FrAnKs]

Should the height restriction be banned in Montreal?

So far : 83% yes, 17% no.

What a surprise, after all, we're in a Skyscrapers forum !

It's like asking if Dolphins like water...

lol

[mr.John]

Originally Posted by Rico Rommheim

The height limit would have sucked if it were in Toronto, or Calgary. But as of now, no promoter or developer has ever proposed to build a tower matching or exceeding this height limit.

What bugs me though are the stupid height limits on the north-south corridors (like crescent, Stanley, mackay) which are a laughable 35m. Also, the western and eastern edges of Rene-levesque should allow for more than 10 floors. If I had it my way every new construction on Rene-levesque between St-mathieu and papineau should have MINIMUM standard of 80m.

Every lot between basin peel and st-Antoine should allow for up to 250m.

A fact people seem to totally ignore, but it would of been nice to see a 72 floor IBM building

[MTLskyline]

I would not completely do away with height limits, but I would revise them. I would also impose minimum heights, to ensure that a adequate level of density is being achieved. I think it is desirable to have a really tall central core, with diminishing heights in all directions.

I would increase the height limit to 250m in the quadrant bordered by Notre-Dame/René-Lévesque and Guy/Victoria Square. This is a low part of downtown with a lot of vacant lots in which we should be encouraging our tallest new development.

St. Catherine Street should also have limits of between 35m and 50m in most places.

De Maisonneuve should have maximum limits of around 120m (minimum of 100m and maximum of 150m should apply between Bleury and Guy) between Berri and Greene Avenue.

The sidestreets between René-Lévesque and Sherbrooke (between Atwater and St. Laurent) should have minimum heights of 35m and maximum heights should vary according to the current built environment on each street. Density wise, I like what has been done on Bishop below St. Catherine. The existing buildings were mostly 3 story townhouses, and the new buildings - opposite, are around 10 floors. The Château Crescent Apartments and the Hotel de la Montagne are two examples of unacceptable buildings to place in the middle of sidestreets (they stand alone and dominate their surroundings - which are shorter).

What we don't want to end up with are 50 story buildings next to 2 story buildings, as can be seen in Toronto in some spots.

[MolsonExport]

^what he said. Like Vancouver's approach to selective height restrictions, certain mountain corridor views should be maintained, but other places should be zoned to go higher. There has to be some controls. We don't want something fugly like Drapeau's proposal for a Montreal penis-tower on top of Mont Royale. As much as I like tall buildings, one of the great things about Montreal is the extreme density.

Density>height.

Drapeau's tower ideas: http://www.cbc.ca/player/Digital+Arc...rt=MostPopular

[franktko]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

^what he said. Like Vancouver's approach to selective height restrictions, certain mountain corridor views should be maintained, but other places should be zoned to go higher. There has to be some controls. We don't want something fugly like Drapeau's proposal for a Montreal penis-tower on top of Mont Royale. As much as I like tall buildings, one of the great things about Montreal is the extreme density.

Density>height.

Drapeau's tower ideas: http://www.cbc.ca/player/Digital+Arc...rt=MostPopular

Thanks for that little clip - it was quite hilarious! I still can't believe that they seriously considered "borrowing" the Eiffel Tower, that is nuts!!!

[Rico Rommheim]

Usually when a city gets a prestigious international event like an expo or the Olympics, they build a rapid transit link from the core to the airport.

We tried to build the Eiffel Tower.

[SkahHigh]

I also agree that a skyline is more affected by the density than the actual height from an esthetic point of view. Montreal's got highrises, now what we need is some 130 to 150 meter towers to fill the empty spots in our skyline.

[Rnr_ss]

J'ai voté non. Je trouve bien qu'il y ai des limites de hauteur par secteur. Pour ne pas se retrouver avec des tours démesurées dans des quartiers où les autres bâtiments ont seulement 3 - 4 étages.

Par contre, je ne suis pas opposé à retirer la limite de hauteur directement au centre-ville où la valeur foncière est la plus élevée. Pour le reste, je garderais les limites de hauteur semblable dans le reste de la ville. C'est à dire, de moins en moins haut plus on s'éloigne du centre.

[kool maudit]

there have been a few proposals that would have exceeded the height limit. there was one on the south side of place du canada that would have been about 300m, and one proposed under the doré administration on sherbrooke at metcalfe or something like that.

[big T]

I guess I just don't understand what the current limit - the height of mount royal - is supposed to achieve. I keep reading that it is to protect the views of the mountain, but clearly being allowed to build towers exactly as high as the mountain (and likely more of them, since you can't go higher) defeats that purpose. We're effectively incentivizing building a wall in front of the very feature we're purporting to protect.

One of the issues I have with our skyline, apart from the relatively slow rate of change, is the plateau effect of the big 5 (especially the 1000 - 1250 - CIBC trifecta to the west). The new condo developments in that area will mitigate it somewhat, but just imagine having a couple nice 250 m and one 300 m somewhere around there too - it would give a much more attractive crown effect. And I really don't know how a 300m tower blocks views any more than a 150m one from street level anyways.

Of course allowing this would require a cool-headed debate and actual reflection from our politicians and the population at large, therefore it will not happen - not in a world where our next chief politician is likely to be made of about 60% populism and 50% opportunism, with the remaining 40% being a general mix of personal ambition and corruptibility (he's a large guy, he gets 150%), and the population voting him in seem to be doing so on the basis of "i've heard of this guy". you can bet the "tall buildings will ruin our views" platitude will have more impact on this demographic than any argumentation based on facts and (god forbid) figures.

/rant.